[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> well, look at this, we have the whole crowd. >> the whole family.

nice to see you. you're in the middle. hi, how are you? come on over here. you're over there. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> congratulations. >> there you go, perfect. >> all right, good job.

>> thank you, congratulations. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you so much for

everything. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> welcome, everyone. >> how are you doing? nice to see you again. well, hi. >> how are you doing? [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> congratulations on re-election. >> you too. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> hi, how are you? you look great. perfect. thanks.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> too far back here. how are you? nice to see you. [inaudible conversations] >> glad you're here. you're welcome, you're welcome. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> wow, wow. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> hi, ladies, how are you? how are you? >> all right. >> surrounded by kentuckians. >> that's all right. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> congratulations, mr. speaker. >> how are you, buddy? >> good. >> left hand there, right hand up. >> yep. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> glad you're all here. >> congratulations. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> there you are. [inaudible conversations]

>> there we go, perfect. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> left hand here. right hand up. [inaudible conversations]

>> how are you? go on the other side. left hand here. >> left hand here. >> right hand up, without being in front of your wife. move it over. [inaudible conversations] >> left hand here. raise your right hand. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> get your hands out of your pockets. pictures last forever. [laughter] >> there you go. [inaudible conversations]

>> congratulations. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> other than that, i'm fine. [inaudible conversations] boy, oh, boy, look at this. right hand up. [inaudible conversations] >> nice to see you. >> thank you, thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> how are you? left hand there. right hand up. [inaudible conversations] >> wow, look at this. we got the whole crowd. here we go. speaker, come right back here. put your right hand -- there you go, right hand. [inaudible conversations] >> how are you? go right this way. nice to see you. how are you? nice to see you. [inaudible conversations]

left here, right up. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> don't worry about me. right here, -- [inaudible conversations] we're leaving this program now to take you live to the senate opening for legislative work.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer.

the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, sovereign of the nations, we place our trust in you. infuse our lawmakers with a spirit of discernment that they may fulfill your purposes for our nation and world. lord, stir them up with a fresh realization of the supernatural resources available to them to accomplish their tasks. as they seek your guidance in all decisions, guard their hearts and minds with your peace. help our senators to give one another kindness, patience, and encouragement, as you saturate

their hearts with your grace and joy. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding off icer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., january 4 , 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: following leader remarks the national will recess to count the electoral votes. following that we're hopeful to complete action on part of the flood insurance -- [inaudible] the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate stands in recess subject to the call of the chair.

earlier today, newly retired congressman barney frank, said that he would like to serve as a temporary successor to massachusetts senator john kerry who is currently nominee for secretary of state. according to the associated

press, mr. frank told msnbc he asked governor duval patrick to appoint him as the state's interim senator until a special election is held to permanently fill senator kerry's seat. mr. frank is 72 years old and served 16 terms in the u.s. house. when he retired he was chairman of house financial services committee. >> the big discussion that i remember was, what is richard nixon going to do. >> i remember going home that night scared to death. this is like a time bomb. this thing gets out and gets in the press and anderson gets it's going it is a disaster for all of us. >> john came to me, john dean the president's council brought me a list of i think 50 names of people. wants a full field investigation of them. that is a very unpleasant thing have happen to you. >> shortly after the farewell speech, al hague,

chief of staff called me. i can't exactly what he said. david, we forgot one thing. he said, what's that? we forgot a resignation letter. i said that is very interesting to, i think will be interested to read it. you need to write it. >> i thought the best way not for me as historian, i'm a trained historian though i wasn't a nixon specialist, for the players, key people living from that era to tell the story themselves. so i thought the best way to do this was to start a video oral history program that involved the nixon players, all the players in the watergate drama from the left and the right, to have them tell the story and then to use portions of that story in the museum to let visitors understand the complexity of this constitutional drama. >> former head of the nixon presidential library and museum, timothy naftali.

deills tails the oral history project sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> they put us in the field and i don't know, some of them shoots were fired i went down, and i think there was something like 96 tanks and half-tracks to pass and they, each one would fire into the group. they came around and anyone that was moving they shot. >> to put it simply you were in this town in belgium, 150 were made captive. 84 were then shot down by ss forces that captured them. the survivors including ted paluch played dead in the field after they were massed, they were fired on by machine guns at close range from the distance from myself at the podium to you sitting in the audience, this range machine guns were fired at these men. they didn't run. they fell to the ground. >> december 17th, 1944, an american convoy traveling

through belgium is spotted and captured by german troops. author danny parker and survivor ted paluch on the malmedy massacre. part of hearn history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> last month british foreign secretary william hague testified before a british committee on arms export controls. they examined a range of issues and the government's policy on strategic exports and arms licensing and other goods. from london, this is hour 10 minutes.

[inaudible conversations] >> foreign secretary, may we welcome you to the arms export controls once again and, we want to also, mr. richards to the foray and also mr. james paver. i'm going to start with a question on the arms trade treaty of which i generously gave you advance notice in my contribution in reference to all debate last week and, in that debate i stated that

the principle of consensus while it may be helpful in getting negotiations underway, though that doesn't always prove to be the case. for example the fissile materiel cuttoff treaty, the principle consensus is not as easy getting any negotiation talks underway at all. then the justification for the consensus principle in the context of the arms trade treaty. the history of consensus is that it is the kiss-of-death if one is trying to reach a agreement, a big, multilateral, multination armies control agreement. if he we had consensus which means of course unanimity we would not today have a non-proliferation treaty. we wouldn't have the

landmines convention and customs munitions convention and so on. so the question i would like to put to you is this. if the march negotiations fail, and obviously we ernestly hope they will succeed, but if the march negotiations fail and they're going to be, you told us will be governed by the consensus principle, will the british government be willing to state that in order to achieve an arms trade treaty that we may not be able to get unanimous subscription to it, it would be a huge advance on the present position where we have no such treaty to get one signed by the great majority of members of the united nations and will it british government be willing to say at that particular point we must take the arms trade treaty back to the united nations and try to get the largest number of nations to sign up to it on the strongest possible terms? >> well, broadly yes.

consensus is not a, it's not an absolute requirement. it is preferable for reasons that i might mention in a moment but if it proves impossible, our view we can't delay an arms trade treaty indefinitely. we don't want to delay it indefinitely and the resolution that convenes the next conference makes it clear that the arms trait treedty supporters will look to the u.n. general assembly to take action to adopt a treaty as soon as possible. so while we'll have to evaluate the circumstances where we are in march after the conference on the 18th to the 28th of are ma. so i don't think, i can't give category rick insurance -- assurance about that. we'll have to see what the circumstances are but we don't rule that out. if it can't be achieved by consensus then we'll have to do our best to get as many signatures and supporters that in a different way. but the consensus principle here is practiceable.

since what we're trying to get to is global standards for regulation of the arms trade and of course there are some very major arms exporters we would like to have in it for whom the consensus principle is important. and the other point i would make, that consensus here is not quite the same as unanimity. consensus means no state opposing agreement. not that there they are obliged then to rapid sign the treaty. gives all states reassurance what they regard as their vital interest. i think we've come tantalizingly close on that consensus basis and the resolution, the recent vote at the u.n. for having the conference in march was 157 in favor, 18 abstentions and none against. we have come sufficiently close to succeeding by consensus that it is worth continuing to try.

>> mr. bruce? >> i think that is very positive, secretary of state. the fact there were no votes against not even zimbabwe this time is really an improvement. it was, i wanted whether in terms of getting an effective treaty and maximum agreement where you think the pinge points are? initially the united states was put in the frame by the arms scroll based there u.s. domestic politics, president obama did not want to further alienate the powerful domestic public ownership lobby, gun ownership lobby prior to the election. that was a problem. we had a terrible tragedy this weekend seems to have changed opinion in the states. first of all do you think, terrible thing to say, have a positive effect on actually getting agreement from the united states? but secondly, and you mentioned other armed export countries you want on board, to what extent is it countries like russia and china actually will

determine how effective a treaty is if it is finally agreed by consensus? >> to the last comment, the treaty that involves those countries that sign and ratify it will be dramatically more effective. russia is a major arms exporter as is the united states. and so we do want them in it. i think it is too early to say, really it's, analysis of u.s. domestic politics, well the u.s. politicians might find difficult at the moment to say how the terrible outrage last week may have affected this but we had reached a point in july with the inclusion of ammunition, which was a contentious point for the united states through article 6 regulating ammunition in article 6 and the export category where the united states, while not willing to go along with the

it at that point was not necessarily actively opposing that. so that's not necessarily a show stopper for them. we certainly hope it isn't and there are things we want to do to improve by which the text that was before us in july could be improved and such as, removing some of the loopholes there that might be argued against the current drafting. greater clarity on public reporting. improving the language on prohibited transfers, getting clear the procedures for amending the treaty in the future so that it can be kept relevant in the future. this question about ammunition, insuring the european union can become parties to the treaty, there are things that are desirable in improving the text but at the same time we have to remember we were getting very close to an agreement on the basis of consensus on the basis of

the july text and i don't know if he would like to add anything on that, on sir malcolm's question, the pinch point? >> i appreciate what you just said and what you said about ammunition is quite encouraging because initially the americans seemed to be resisting that. the fact they're not resisting to it even if they have not agreed to it is helpful. i was wondering the relationship with mexico and the situation in mexico has had an effect? because clearly they spill over their border in a way the massive proliferation of american guns killing mexican citizens cross-border traffic seems to reinforce a good strong domestic case for the america being interests in the armies control treaty perhaps they might not have been a couple years ago? >> that is a very good case and we should all seek to persuade the united states and i will be certainly seeking to persuade the united states this is

something they should adopt and support including with improvements. but as we all know well debates about arms, small arms control in the united states are entirely different from any debate in this country or any other european country. it is a totally different atmosphere. but we will be absolutely doing our best in the run up to this conference in march which we have sponsored and called for to persuade other countries to regard it as the vital task, the great opportunity now, to, finalize and agree on an arms trade treaty. >> thank you. >> also the arms trade treaty? >> yes. our obviously negotiating at the present time, foreign secretary, i have some concerns that the russian arms sales to syria which have clearly been in the news this year would be exempt under article 5.2 of the draft treaty.

they come under existing defense cooperation agreements. so i just wonder whether, one of the pinch points in these loopholes you're trying to tackle is that particular point about cooperation agreements? >> yes, that is something that we would like to tackle you about of course, we're unlikely be able to achieve the absolute ideal in every aspect of this and of course this is something, an arms treaty we hope will stand the test of time. and some of those current agreements are going to become obsolete. i certainly hope of course that we will be able to, we can now look forward to the day, we don't know when it is, when the regime in syria will not be there and all such arms agreements will come to an end. we don't know how long that will take. >> richard, you want to add on that point? >> i don't think so, foreign secretary. i think you're absolutely right. the point in article 5.2 on

defense cooperation agreements is seen as by many supporters of treaty as a weakness and it is one area we all certainly want to do our best to try to address in march. >> thank you. >> just before we move onto the next, mr. foreign secretary can i thank you for your classified letter to the committee on the arms trade treaty which was helpful to the members of the committee to have. >> if it would be helpful during the process of negotiations up to march for the committee to continue to be informed with some confidential information about negotiations priorities i would be very happy to keep you informed as we go along. >> we are always glad to be kept as fully informed as you, mr. foreign secretary. thank you. can we just now turn to the processing of arms export license applications within your own department. jeffrey donaldson. >> there has been a significant increase in number of strategic export

license applications being submitted to fco ministers. how has this impacted on the time taken for the approval process to be completed? and if so, what has been the effect on the negotiations? >> i don't think it has had any significant effect. we're doing well on time. we received 15,000 applications in the last year. 85% were completed in 10 working days and 99.8% within 60 working days in the foreign office. that is even with a sharp increase in ministerial oversight of such applications. i think in february i gave the committee the numbers for 2011. we were up to 153 ministerial submissions as opposed to 39 the previous year. this year so far, at end of the year, 295 ministerial submissions. but we ministers are relatively quick about our

work and particularly with the foreign office team. so that isn't contributing to any delays. you can see in the specific of time the performance is very strong. >> can we now move onto a number of questions that we want to ask you in relation to the middle east and north africa. bob stewart. >> good morning, mr. foreign secretary. export policy review, policy review, rather, some government organizations have been dispointed they haven't been involved in the review of it and also some members of industry haven't been involved. do you have a particular view on that? >> well, this, i think we discussed this a little at the last time i came to the committee. this was a review within the government. this was ministers asking

officials for advice how we do this differently and better and we've previously explained to the committee what was recommended in that, the things we decided to do in the life of that review which we have done. i think the, in this year in 2012 we've had the energetic introduction of that all that, of everything we decided to, including by the way the foreign office of a specific department, the arms export policy department which these two -- >> actual all internal? >> it is an internal review and we've now done, we're now, [inaudible] thank you. i want you to know that we have done the things that we said we were going to do. we've introduced a suspension mechanism. we've got a new country risk categorization. we have the increased ministerial oversight i just mentioned. new requirements on post-s overseas to report on their

concerns and i hope that's presentation of public information on arms export including more information to this committee. so we have set about it energy energeticly. i'm pleased over progress we made over past year. >> thank you. i want to start with a couple of specific questions pointing to more general and you recently talk abouted cooperation accord and the giving a history of human rights abuses u.k. government have any misgivings about dealings with this accord? what does the accord cover and interests, [inaudible] >> well this, we signed this on the 11th of october and this provides a framework for current and future defense activity including

training and capacity-building with bahrain and, partly in order to enhance the stability of the whole region and as the committee will be aware we have defense assets of our own stations in bahrain. our mine sweepers in particular which are responsible for in any crisis, for freedom of navigation in the gulf. they are based there, physically based there in bahrain. so we need to regularly update and amend that defense cooperation arrangements. we have a long history of defense engagement with bahrain since the independence of bahrain from us in 1971 this of course comblyments existing agreements. it doesn't change our approach to export licensing in any way. indeed there have been export license applications in relation to bahrain which we have recently refused or

are in the process of refusing. so it doesn't change our approach to export licensing in any way. it is part of a long-standing defense arrangement with a country that is an ally of ours. they have had serious internal difficulties but it is an ally of the united kingdom. >> but did you have any specific, in terms of these issues? >> it is not, to the extent that the relationship includes training and capacity building that might benefit for the human rights area. it is often argued by those in authority in bahrain that what they need is security forces to know what to do, to be trained in how to handle civil disorder. i'm glad to say there is a bahrain defense force not being deployed on the streets and quite near the beginning of the trouble in bahrain in 2011 has not been

deployed at all in the last year. so this defense cooperation accord doesn't relate to those difficulties or to export licensing. >> [inaudible]? >> well it may be more for the ministry of defense to have on its website. i don't know, but we're not, there is no problem if you would like to see us on a website. we'll put it on the website. it is not a secret. it is not secret information. >> well it -- [inaudible] >> exactly. it can appear and wherever you would like it to appear. >> another question on the saudi arabia. has the government made several announcements on the requests to bomb yemeni territory and, are you able to share any of that analysis with us and elaborate on the locations that the u.k. policy regarding arms transfers to saudi arabia? >> well we followed that particular situation. this is in 2009 and, and we

followed that closely the time of the conflict between saudi arabia and the tribes. we don't believe the british equipment was used inappropriately or in breach of consolidated criteria. the defense relationship with saudi arabia includes the provision of training for saudi military personnel and our training military training establishments which includes training on international humanitarian law, human rights, and accountability, and so we have no reason to believe that our criteria were breached in this situation. >> quickly ask a general question. given the policies of this committee we screened multiple times, just asking a general question, can you demonstrate any cases or kpap peltz where the consequence of foreign offices review of export policy transfers authority to a regime we actually --

>> we did, as the committee knows we had revocation of 158 licenses last year. that was a subject of some controversy and the committee took a different view in some respects about the lessons of that. and so, those, i suppose the more detailed, probably far more detail depends what you mean by authoritarian regime. but that was revocation of licenses to countries in the middle east and north africa and there has also been revocation of a couple in the last year to syria when the e.u.'s embargo changed, the provisions of that changed and so, i think those are advantages. >> thank you. >> mike gates. >> can you confirm in the case of an agreement between the u.k. and another

government perhaps some kind of defense cooperation that doesn't have the same status as the, where we are talking about restrictions or controls on the arms exports that are purchased from british companies or exported from this country? in other words, if the mod decides to transfer equipment to another state that wouldn't be subjected to the same criteria as would apply with regards to the armed export regime? . .

>> if you have further information; that would be helpful. okay. that's fine. can i ask you about the review as regards the workload that you referred to for ministers, the number of items for consideration: you said thorough overseeing of ministers went up 235 this year compared to 153 last year and 39 in the previous year before your middle east and north africa review. >> right. >> this is presumably dealt with by the human rights section in

the fco, and then necessary, referred to military; is that correct? >> well, there's an opportunity to comment on such a review. the work is on-deck policy. that's what it's for, and i think it led to a very good focus on the particular department, but, of course, the recommendations that come to ministers can also come from the popes, embassy, country, concerns, the human rights department so ministers are given the view, sometimes a variety of views, actually, because we want to know if there's aen agreement from different parts. >> and in your previous session with secretary of state cable, we were touching on the time it's taken for consideration and decision. if this extra ministerial involvement is a factor in

delaying some of the decisions? >> well, it's not -- it's purely from the figures i've given. it's not delaying them beyond any expected time. ministerial submissions -- submissions that come to my office are dealt with the day they come, overnight. >> home secretary on the immigration, hundreds of billions, dealing with those matters. >> i'm sure they are very quick in other departments too, but -- [laughter] we are certainly expeditious, and sometimes i say i want to, in fact, particularly, with the difficult decision on arms export, think about it for a couple days, but they don't -- take for weeks. the officials are first time. we dealt with 99.8% within 60 working days. a year ago, if we look at the

table of long outstanding cases, we had seven outstanding over a year, and now we have none outstanding over a year, and at that time, we had 36 that were outstanding between three and six month, and now we have only 15 in that category. you can see the actual numbers of those that are taking more than three months, and it is veryings very small. >> can i swish focus to syria? as you're well aware because you've been involved in the discussions of your colleagues and the european union, there is an involvement on syria. could you confirm this applies not just to the regime, but also support for opposition groups or forces? what would be necessary -- way would be the process required if, as the prime minister said in answer to me on monday, there

was to be a change, and he said that they were looking at it, the phrase used, what would be required if the u.k. government or any other individual in the state decided to apply military equipment to the syria opposition? >> the first part of the question is applying to the whole of syria and to everybody in it. other than to any equipment needed for u.n. operations, but that applies to the opposition groups. that's the government, and we have just rolled over that embargo from december 1st, but we decided, i think, the occasion of france and the united kingdom to do that for three months rather than 12 months. we decided to do that because we don't know how the situation is going to develop, and we think

the european union would be able to respond. there's no decisions beyond that. it is now for e.u. states to come up to march deadline of the current eu expirey. they wouldn't want to amend that in any way. for instance, it could be amended to apply to the regime and not to opposition forces in theory, or it could be amended in many other ways. to amend it that way requires the agreement of all of the e.u. member states. >> can i proview a little bit on this? i understand that we are already supplying equipment to elements within the syria opposition, and

i'd be interested to know that could be limited, but not lethal. how strict is the embargo, and is it possible to get communications equipment that could be used in conjunction with weaponry supplied by turkey, qatar, some other countries to elements within the opposition? >> it's not military. it's certainly not lethal. the assistance so far include things like the deployment, you can work with the opposition on there, and future plans and how they are getting help to people, people's basic needs in opposition held areas, and framing citizens and journalists. we are providing, in terms of actual material, more purification and generators to help civilians in opposition held areas, and we are flying

communications equipment to help activists overcome the communications black out, blockages introduced by the regime, and to get their message and reporting out to the outside world. now, as i've said on the floor of the house, of course, you have to balance the need to do that, people are in desperate need of help. we are not going beyond those things at the moment. >> the prime minister said to me monday, a step into the authority as well, no e.u. country was supplying weaponry in the european union embargo. do other countries have the same, strict view as to what is supplied or not supplied in

terms of the embargo? >> i believe so. i have no evidence of the country. >> does the government report somewhere? reform rates and partners what we are doing and do they tell us what we are doing? >> they don't have to say, i suppose, if a country was going to breach, an illegal act, and e.u. country would do that, and no indication from any -- >> the press report that france has been supplying equipment are not true? >> absolutely no evidence of that. >> the deadline, if it was decided to have the situation

moving rapidly, and that would come to a tipping point, perhaps over the christmas recess, how would that change it? require a meeting of the foreign affairs council or can it be taken by other means? >> to amend that before the first of march, that can be done -- it could be done technically at any council of ministers of the european union, but it would require unanimity in order to amend it, and all 27 states agreeing on that. there are a variety of people in the situation, in europe, and what to do next. i think as it stands, it's unlikely to change in the coming weeks. we're looking towards the first of march, but it's not impossible to do so if there was

a dramatic change. >> would it be overturned if there was a u.n. security council resolution? >> a u.n. security council resolution takes press -- if the united nations adopted an international, a u.n. resolution with an armed embargo -- >> or saying there's no arms embargo. >> no, then it's open to any nation or to the european union to still have its own embargo. it's not overridden negatively as it were by a u.n. resolution. >> okay, thank you. >> katie clark? >> [inaudible] >> well, frequently raises the point with leaders of other countries, not really able to set a record of the meetings he's had, specific leaders in

the middle east, they are confidential for understand baling reasons. i can't list everything, discuss them, each meeting, but the prime minister raises it internationally. i can say that. >> what would you say the answer are to some of these governments -- [inaudible] what can you see? >> well, there are -- it's important to know that no country voted again as i mentioned moments ago of holding the conference at the end of march. on the specific attitudes of the gulf states, they have not really been among the most troublesome countries on the arms base treaty. richard, do you want to expand on that? >> no, that's fine. you know, they vice haven't. it was a genetic concern for countries in the middle east, and their concern was to ensure the treaty would not make it

more difficult for them to acquire what they need for self-defense, and we assured them, and that is what it would, in effect do, is prevent cry criteria of what we currently implement, and since we are currently able, under our criteria, to export and license, in a sense, equipment for them, you know, the treaty would not add anything on top of that. she should be reassured that the answer is it would not make it more difficult. >> [inaudible] >> well, the prime minister gives a high level of power and is enthusiastic about the work we have done and ministers involved, and particularly, allen duncan to get where we got to in july on the arms trade treaty, and very supportive

other than pushing for the conference that we're having in march, and if we need to call in the phone call to other leaders, the prime minister at the time so negotiations can come to a time point, then he will be very responsive. that seems to help so he attaches a very high priority to it and raises it internationally as i do. >> richard berman? >> thank you. can i take a few moments to go back briefly to the internal review you carried out? correct me on what you said based on your answers on, like, bahrain, saudi arabia, and yemen. you feel the implementation of that review, respond to things more rapidly and decisively to areas of instability. if that is the case, after this

still spreads by states only, i think it was eluded to, they have not been sufficiently involved, not just in revows, but in the implementation of things about reviews in which they were part of, would there be a conflict with running free with that? what review was -- what is being done to implement it? difficult? >> no, i don't think so. i'm all in favor of maximum communication so we can do that. we can organize a meeting to do that. we have discussed in my human rights advisory group, which covers all subjects, wide ranging group, but with many of the key ngo's represented on it. we have to discussion just recently, and the last couple weeks, the approach to the arms trade treaty, the gorks in

march, and, i think, they are very supportive of the action they are taking to sponsor that conference so i personally did have discussions with some of those organizations about this, but i think there's going to be no problem whatsoever. there's a lot we can gather about what we've done to implement it. review and the improved procedures that we have so i'm happily committing my officials to another meeting to describe it all. [laughter] >> turning now to ammunitions. >> secretary of state, we talked on positions of being prohitted in direct fields, and indirect financing, and the distance there in the committee, a number of financial institutions for code of conduct. any indication of whether your department will try and broker such a court? >> well, a number of banks have

issued clear statements about this already. >> yeah. >> i'm pleased to say. lloyd, bc, issued statements, and they would not knowingly invest in producers. we think that a voluntary -- well, actually, you're referring to a voluntary approach in the question, a voluntary approach by the banks and intervention by the government so we'll now monitor welcoming what those banks have done, monitor what other -- what approach other financial institutions take, and how it encourages them to spell out their positions clearly, and i would hope that that would -- sorry, i would hope that that will deal with the issues. we prefer a voluntary approach by the banks themselves, but i do not rule anything out if we don't get that. >> given your special knowledge in the area, and i'm sure people want to make sure that any documents are going --

[inaudible] active interest in issuing that courts have an informed discussion among financial institutions, and those that have not yet publicly adopted a code of conduct are proactively encouraged to do so. there's that institution -- >> well, we are taking that approach, as you can gather, and monitoring closely which ones do this and which ones don't. i'm happy to say now that if there is not sufficient progress on this, you know, financial institutions across the board taking them, making the approach clear, and, well, then, we've too wratch et up -- ratchet up the reminders, and greater active interest on the government. i'm not ruling anything out, but i would like them to do this

themselves. it's the simplest and easiest way for it to be done. i don't rule anything out, and if, when i come back to the commote in a year -- come back in a year's time, we'll look at further options on this. [laughter] >> when we have had specific request for advice from any one of the institutions, we have provide them. >> right. i'm sure the committee is interested to see the progress that's been made next year. thank you. >> uh-huh. >> then the relationship and consistency between the u.k., national consolidated criteria for on-deck sports and the e.u. common position case. >> secretary, european union council is announcing them in the conclusion of the first review of the common position, and is the government satisfied with this first phase? what do you expect to come from

the final conclusion of the review? >> yeah, it's, as you said, it's the initial report in the council conclusions adopted ten days or so ago. the e.u. member states concluded that the common position is working well, but further work needs to be done on the implementation so we have to wait a third results of the work: i think it's too early to say if we're completely satisfied with it, but with are happy with the way work is being conducted. it makes sense to weigh the outcome of this, particularly, the adoption of the arms trade treaty in the meantime. they then -- the end product of the e.u.. >> obviously, the government seems to be satisfied, but then the ngos and other people interested have got no means to know whether it's satisfactory

or not because it's not being done in public. do you think there's a case as put to us by the ngos and u.k. working group that external stake holders should have been involved in the process and made contributions to it, and in addition, they should be more open and transparent? >> well, they should be -- yeah, more openness in e.u. affairs is usually a good idea. it's conducted by the internal action service, and it's then decide who to consul. give them credit. they had a meeting with civil society in brussels on the fourth of december including the review of the commons. i'm not sure i don't have here the list of who attended that, but there was an opportunity for ngos to attend that. i can't say i'll encourage them

to do more of that. that's a beginning in openness and wider discussions. put to us, interestingly, that the u.k.'s only own consolidated criteria are weaker in some aspects than the european union's common position. now, do you agree? is that the case? if so, do you have any proposals to introduce legislation to fight our national positions to make them in line with european union's common position? >> i have not seen anything. my officials mite want to comment, but as far as i can see, the licenseing and provisions of the common position, there are some -- that the wording of our consolidated criteria bitters in some my -- differs in some minor respects. >> i don't think we're told it was minor. we were told issues of national

security assessments and defaced interests will considerably weaken, were the words of a particular. >> i would like to see any sub -- sub stan arguments on that. let's have the details of that. richard, do you want to comment further on that? >> nothing really to add, i don't think. we feel there's nothing in our criteria that allows license to be granted in a way it would otherwise be refused under the common position. our criteria is a common position. >> okay. [inaudible] >> by all means, follow it up. make an understanding of how we do these things. >> i just want to turn now to a particular aspect, the new licenses issued to deal with maritime somalia.

particularly, some of the export licenses approved to countries like madagascar includes body rifle armor, helmets, pistols, weapon sights, ect.. you can make a good army out of that, i reckon, in my experience. how sure are you that these weapons, exported specifically for maritime security, might not be diverted? russia's also another country that's getting this kick, but, also, exporter of such equipment to other countries as well. do you have your view on that, please? >> yes, it's very important, as the committee agrees to fight piracy effectively, and we're doing that as a result of a

range of measures, but part of that is proper possession, really, on the high seas, resulting in an increasing number of applications for these things, weapons, ammunition, other weapons use the for security companies. two things to say about that is first of all, every application is assessed on a case-by-case basis against the cry criteria taking into account of internal repression in any of the destination countries and the risk of diversion, and some of the destinations do raise concerns against the criteria so we have to look at the criteria. secondly, subject to that, we improve #* license -- licenses for companies that signed for the code of conduct. >> operating in somalia? >> yes, yes. >> a british company using sort

of ex-special forces personnel on a ship off the horn of africa will be subject to this control too? >> yeah. and they also -- the conditions we'd have to open licenses include anti-piracy operations, limited, registeredded to a state, equipment used by named personnel, companies have to provide a copy of the standard operating procedures and rules and engagement of each application. there's a limit on the number of weapons that can be held in one country at one time so no one could form an army out of it, and weapons must be stored securely at each test in addition, country, usually with the country's national security organization or an authorized armory. >> thank you. >> quite of lot of defenses. >> thank you, you took that quite supplementary, so thank you, chairman. [laughter] >> we're going to turn now to

drones and miss m control regime. bruce? >> thank you. secretary of states, the international development committee was in pakistan a couple weeks ago, and we heard for ourselves there was political impact and drones and the way they were exploited, very visibly in the uprunning up to the election, and you know the next 30 american women to the drone impact sites and used a powerful attack on american engagement. i wanted to know if you could give reaction to the argument that they are worried that the missile technology control regime is damming the market for drones, and they are looking for some kind of relaxation so, i mean, can you tell us what -- i

know what the policy is in relation to drone activity and pakistan, but on the wider use of drones and the extent to which you feel that the system we have is adequate to control, particularly those who supply components. >> well, the controls on the empty fee are, the controls of the exports of uavs are strong, and those capable of traveling beyond the range of only 300 kilometers and carrying a payload above 500 kilograms are subject, as i'm sure you know, to a strong presumption of denial where an advocate of strong control and partners feel that we've ensuredded these remain appropriately controlled, and i think that will be very important given that there are more and more countries interested in such technology. it will remain very important.

that's not to say we have to amend them over time with technology, change it, but it remains important with strong control. >> what about the practice that is developing of leasing or representing out drones? it's argued this could be a way, and it is, and releasing drones in afghanistan, does it -- do those have to comply to the same regulations a little bit like the question you gave -- the reply you gave to mr. gapes. can we assume if they are rented, the same rules would apply? >> that shouldn't be a way of getting around the control. i'll ask for con confirmation fm the officials, but the same control applies as i understand. >> yes. >> yes? >> yes.

>> just following the reply contextually, were you saying, or were you not saying that the british government will resist any attempts to weaken the technology missile regime in relation to drops? >> well, i'm saying there has to be a strong reregime, but i didn't consciously say it has to be amended from time to time. >> so you're not giving us such that you -- the british government will resist any -- >> we're not, in general, as is clear, our position in jbl is not to -- are not -- our whole position on the arms straight treaty, arms control, to make things tougher over time so -- but i -- i don't know what other people describe as a weakening or a strengthening of the position. we will have a tough, strong

export comptroller regime at all times into the future. >> [inaudible] >> quickly, the foreign minister -- [inaudible] >> well, i discussed with the pakistan prime minister a vast array of issues on a very regular basis, and, while, again, i can't start listing what was discussed in every meeting, confidential meetings, and we -- it would be amazing if we had not discussed this sort of issue. >> right. >> and then the last area we ought to cover, foreign secretary, some specific countries of concern. we want to begin with afghanistan. mike case? >> yes, thank you. the defense secretary's made an important statement today about the revised timetable in terms of numbers and trips in afghanistan. i don't want to ask you about that, but i do want to ask about indications of that or

equipment. i understand that there are about # ,000 armoredded vehicles and 11,000 containers of equipment worth about four billion pounds in afghanistan with our forces. presumably, a large part of that has to be brought home, safely, securely somehow, but some of it will not be brought back. my questions are, really, what steps are we going to take to deal with equipment that we leave behind? doesn't that mean come within the export controls and the issue that i already touched on. what guarantee do we have that we hand equipment over to the afghan forces, that the afghan

forces will not hang on to, sell it to, or have it capturedded from them by the taliban, and is it being a risk that what mite up in the hands of the haqqani network or potentially al al-qaa related groups? >> well, the defense secretary gave some information to the house in november about plans on this. he said the intense is to extract all equipment whose value to the arms forces is an extraction and recooperation. reallily, that is, you would expect that to include or have sophisticated equipment, but if we hope we do the southern route, pakistan, but we are

negotiating northern rotes in kazakhstan and russia, but we can also bring equipment out by air, and as things stand now r there are no firm plans to leave equipment behind. there is no decisions to leave behind equipment x in afghanistan. if we do that, all relevant issues have to be looked at, but i think we should. if left to the afghan courses, we regard it in the same way. >> will export lines have to be issued for goods that are gifted, and will there be a need of approval for any such equipment? >> there's every opportunity, i think, the parliament debate,

and the committees. as for the question on licenses, richard, do you want to -- >> yes, i would. the linings where they approve the transfer of the equipment from the u.k. takes place under crowned unions. there's a shared table in the annual report on the equipment. if the gift is above a certain value, than the informanet knows. >> we're not why a position to go further than that? >> no. >> i think we'll revisit the issue; right? >> oh, i'm sure, and i think the mission defense will need to supply information. >> thank you. okay. >> come now to arian gene -- argentina. >> the u.k. government introduced restrictions on the export of some goods and the military, and the government in

terms of relations of the e.u. governments and other allies to encourage them to look at similar situations. in response, you suggested that there is not any lobbying going on for a government to do that. is that an apparent inconsistency in the government position? >> no, i don't think so. obviously, our policy was changed in response to the change in actions, named in harm of the economic issue, and we do have a particular interest, and, obviously, that's the united kingdom, and we do expect them to take it into account when considering export licenses and applications, but, of course, they have to make their own assessment of that. i think trying to persuade, for example, if we were to say just

say it for the sake of argument, and i don't know if there's relevance to argentina, that they shouldn't export, there would be no particular offenses because i don't think other e.u. countries would readily adopt the position, nor are there exports on a huge scale from what one can see at the moment so that's not a productive use of the time. >> just does the department have any takers for the number of u.n. security council exports restricted by this? >> it was small. there was six open licenses that were revoked which covered components and military aircraft, components and naval

vessels, software for military communications, equipment, and some equipment employing cryptography. the amounts were small, such as in the last year, less than two million pounds in total, but we felt as ministers, and this is my investigation, but as a minister's readily agree, given the changed posture of argentina and the position adopted in the 1990s to not to have any exports and permit those that it was out of date and that we shouldn't contribute to any maintenance of the military capabilities, and the amounts involved were very small. >> foreign secretary, i have to say, i mean, immediately

following the war, where in that war, british ships were sunk with french missiles. i have to say i find it extraordinary that the british government is apparently not willing to at least try to persuade other armed suppliers to argentina to adopt the small, restrictive policy now followed rightly by the british government. i find it extraordinary against the history that you should not be willing to exempt yourself in that way. >> we are in a very different situation, thankfully, from that tragic and dramatic time, and the own defenses of the islands, and argentina formed military action on the faults, and, therefore, the responsiveness of other countries on this might be quite limited so we've taken our action because we don't want to

contribute in any way ourselves to maintaining argentina's military capabilities, which i'm -- which are considerably less than its capabilities in 1982. that has to be remembered. >> but there are compelling reasons why the british government has decided to adopt more restrictive policies towards argentina. you, from the sources, the information availed to you, secret sources, have, i'm sure, very good reasons for that policy. why surely should you not be persuading other arm suppliers to adopt the same policy? >> i don't think that that would become the general policy of other countries, and we have to direct those efforts to most likely be productive, and nor do i think we are anywhere near the moment on any evidence available to us at the moment, a crisis in

the military sense in these matters. >> israel, katie clark. >> thank you. following the developments -- [inaudible] >> of course we are always careful and in the recent conflict last month, a british defense forces weaponry, and we called on the israeli authorities without including in my own conversations of the israeli foreign minister to abide by international humanitarian law and avoid civilian casualties, and also

involved to cooperate with egyptian, thankfully, successfully, egyptians to reach a cease fire, and i think you just also have a written answer on this from alison berg. there's letters, letters have not revoked any licenses, anything we have seen, and in this situation. >> were any talking components that originated in the u.k., and the recent conflict in gaza? >> well, we've no assessment to date whether u.k. weapons or components were usedded, but remember, also, the circumstance. we have to remember in any case the circumstances here. the circumstances i've seen and described them, and as you know, on the floor of the house, think about the wider situation in the

meases -- middle east and long term factors that contribute to the situation in gaza, immediate and principle cause of the conflict way with the increased frequency of rocket attacks on southern israel so that has to be a factor in looking at this as well. >> if there were concerns, originated in the u.k., used by, really, ibf or if or the israeli navy in the recent conflict in gaza, and/or itself, would that have been acceptable under the license agreement? >> i think we have to see at the time. we have no evidence to date of any u.k. weapons or components in the situation. if we did, of course; we'd then

assess them against the cry criteria. that's what happened in previous conflict and this one. >> would there be a check on that? >> o', yeah, absolutely, but we have not got any evidence to date. >> okay. just one question. >> the last one. >> and it's in relation to the situations of the west bank of gaza, well, in gaza. are you aware there's construction equipment and destruction equipment used to build the barrier in the west bank, inside the west bank, inside palestinian territory? made it very clear what u.k. policy is in those cases, which i'm grateful for, but has there been assessment? could there be assessment of what stage the use of equipment like that originates in the u.k.

could be equipment that was subject to licensing? >> well, that's a wider question, really. that's not something dealt with at the moment, under our licenses and com -- control regime. it's a legitimate issue to raise, but i don't want to give commitment today that we can change the rules on that. >> thank you very much indeed for coming in front of us today. thank you, and mr. paver, thank you, also, and secretary, i feel very confident that the correspondents between the committees and yourself will continue. thank you very much. >> of course, thank you very much. ?as' in recess for a joint session with the house that just wrapped up. when that returns, we expect the

passage of legislation for $9 billion of funding for flues insurance programs to help those affected by hurricane sandy. the house passed the measure today, and if the senate approves it, the bill goes to president obama for his signature. until the senate gavels in, here's a look at vice president joe biden who, yesterday, held a mock swearing in ceremony for a number of senators of the new 113th congress. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic? that you bear true faith and do the same, take the obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office about which you are about so help you god? >> i do. >> congratulations, senator. [inaudible conversations] >> you're gracious to let him go

first. [inaudible conversations] >> pull that back a little. [inaudible conversations] >> raise your right hand? pull back so we can see the most important part of the team, okay? all right. please raise your right hand. do you swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you bear true faith and do the same as you take the obligation freely without any mental reservation or mental evasion and discharge the duties upon what you are about to enter so help you god? [inaudible conversations] >> oh, yeah, bring the family

in, of course. what's your name? >> kevin. >> kevin, nice to see you. how are you? yeah, i remember. hi, how are you? good looking bunch. how are you, man? i like your hat. nice to see you. >> nice to see you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the most important job, that's what i tell my grandchildren. how old are you? >> 15. >> you're getting old. >> how old are you? >> 15. >> don't get serious until you're 30. >> i like that.

[inaudible conversations] >> good to see you, man, good to see you. [inaudible conversations] >> stand on this one? >> sorry. [inaudible conversations] >> do you support the constitution of the united states against all enemies, bear true faith to do the same and take the obligation freely without mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that you are well in faith discharge the duties of the office of which you are about to enter so help you god? >> i do. >> congratulations, happy to have you back. the senate is lucky to have you back. >> would you do one with my

family now? >> i would love to. how are you? >> that's my granddaughter, ilene. >> you are beautiful. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> oh, thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i don't know this. [inaudible conversations]

>> good lord, you kidding me? [inaudible conversations] >> senator, come forward just a little bit. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> do you swear you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you bear true faith and allege to do the same, take the obligation freely without mental reservation or purpose of evasion and faithly take the duties of the office of which you are about so help you god? >> i do. >> congratulations, pal. [inaudible conversations]

>> oh, thanks. [inaudible conversations] >> how are you? we went to school together. >> yeah, nice to see you again. >> how are you? >> that's the vice president of the united states. >> how old are you? >> [inaudible] >> oh, 17? >> no, i'm 11. >> you're 11. what's your name? >> griffin. >> great to see you guys. let's get a picture. stand in front here. there you go. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you very much. >> thank you so much.

[inaudible conversations] >> i don't want a handshake, mom. good to see you. >> i met you at the white house. >> i remember, that's why i want another one. [inaudible conversations] >> do you swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you bear true faith and allegiance to do the same and take this obligation freely without mental reservation or purpose of evasion so that you are well and faithly charged of the duties about the office so help you god? >> i do. >> congratulations. good for us. >> nice to see you again.

[inaudible conversations] >> mom, take care of her, will you? all right. >> oh, hi, bob. good to see you. [inaudible conversations] >> hey, how are you? good to see you. hi, how are you? welcome back. welcome here. bob, raise your right hand, please. do you solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you bear true faith and allegiance to do the same and take the obligation freely without mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that you will well and faithly discharge the duties of the office about which you are about to enter so

help you god? >> i do. >> returning live to capitol hill now, the senate's gaveling back in following a recess with the joint session with the house. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york is recognized. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. today i rise in support of the legislation that we are about to vote on that will provide an additional $9.7 billion to the national flood insurance

program. without these funds, the program would have run out of money next week, leaving over 100,000 victims of hurricane sandy in the lurch. so i'd like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for allowing this vote to go forward. they have acted honorably. so the good news, mr. president, is that the house passed this bill this morning and the senate will pass it in a few minutes. with the passage of this bill, hurricane victims from staten island to east long island as well as in new jersey can rest assured their flood insurance will have enough money to pay out claims. we really had no choice but to pass this provision because the federal government is obligated to reimburse when people have floods if they paid in their flood insurance. while this bill is important, it's something we were almost

obligated to do, and we should not have parades down the street because this bill has passed. the major work of helping the victims of sandy is still ahead of us. the bad news is that we even had to go through this dog and pony show in the first place. last month the senate passed a good, strong bill to help all victims of hurricane sandy, and the house simply could have taken it up and passed it. and in fact they promised to vote on a similar provision before the last congress ended. unfortunately, this changed at the last moment. we don't need to get into the why's right now. we just want it to happen, and we're worried that the second major portion of this relief bill will not get through the house in the form that it

should. so we need the house to pass not only the $9 billion that they passed this morning, but the $5 # billion that -- but the $51 billion that contains the bulk of the aid that people need, without which we will not be able to recover. to be a bride and left at the altar once is bad enough. to be left twice would be unconscionable. so as i said, mr. president, this is a good step that we're going to pass this $9 billion flood insurance bill. this is a good but small first step. it's a small down payment on the much larger amount of aid we need to get through congress. let me tell you what's not in this bill, mr. president. what's not in in bill is help for every homeowner who doesn't have flood insurance and lost their home or suffered major damage.

homeowners who are waiting for congress to pass relief the way we did for irene and katrina and so many other disasters, cannot get a contractor to sign a contract, get a bank to make a loan until they know that the federal government will be there to reimburse as it always has in the past. what is not in this bill is aid to small business. small business people who are hanging by their finger nails, who might not be able to restart their businesses unless there's federal aid. that was already in the senate bill. unless it comes back from the house and we're able to pass it from the senate, they will be hurt. what is not in in bill is dollars to rebuild our highway and, most importantly, our mass transit systems that were flooded, damaged. the m.t.a. alone has taken out a $5 billion loan, but it will be

in real financial jeopardy unless it's assured that it will be reimbursed for all the damage that sandy caused to our railroads and our tunnels and our mass transit system, amazing mass transit system that brings 3.5 million people off and on manhattan island every single day. what's not in this bill is help to bring the electricity system back up to snuff so there won't be major blackouts and so people can be assured of their electric. and what's not in this bill is money to help all the communities that laid out hundreds of millions and billions of dollars for the cleanup, and their taxpayers will foot the bill unless congress does what it has always done, stepped up to the plate when a major disaster occurs, and have the federal government help out the locality, because there's been a wisdom, mr. president, for 100 years

that when an area is afflicted by disaster, we unite as a nation and come together and help that part of the country out, whether it's new mexico or california or louisiana or florida or missouri or north dakota or new york or new jersey. so, again, this bill is a first step to deal with flood insurance. it's the easiest part. the hard stuff is still ahead of us. we await the house returning in a week and a half, and we hope and expect in fact that they will vote the full $51 billion remainder, and we hope and expect, in fact, that they won't put legislative language that prevents money from getting to homeowners and communities that need it desperately right away. the draft that we have seen contains some major changes from

the senate bill that would make it very difficult for n.i.h., the army corps, and other parts of the government to spend the dollars that are needed efficiently and quickly and to place them where they go. so we beseech the house to finish its business, to finish the major part of its business and approve the $51 billion that will make up the rest of the 60. we beseech them not to hamstring the local homeowners and businesses and governments with language that would prevent recovery. we beseech them to move quickly. and then, of course, the ideal would be for them to pass the same bill that the senate passed in the waning hours of the last session. if they can't, we will have to

get legislation through the body again. but through the generosity of the majority leader, he has assured us it will be the first order of business when we return. and so, we have to move forward. as we've seen, this is not going to be easy. there are many bumps in the road and obstacles we can't yet see. for sure they will arise and for sure we'll have to grapple with them. so, mr. president, this vote needs to be the beginning of the process. it can't certainly be the end, and it certainly can't be the middle. we can't just pass this $9 billion bill and then say that's it. we can't let the house pass this and rest on its laurels. we in new york and new jersey can't let our guard down, not until the full $60 billion arrives in new york and new jersey can we stop working. so i urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and then i'll urge them to keep the

victims of sandy in new york, new jersey and elsewhere in their thoughts so that we can continue to support the region when we return. i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, in the years i've served in legislative bodies, which is quite a long time now, it's

interesting to see how other, how different people approach the legislative process. i've learned over the years there's no, nothing more important than people working hard. you have to be tenacious to get legislation passed. and the leader of passing sandy over here -- and i'm confident when we get back in a couple of weeks after the house works on theirs, the same dynamic will be there. the senior senator from new york has worked tirelessly to get legislation passed. he's led a team effort of senators from new jersey, and his partner gillibrand. but the leader, the quarterback has been the senator from new york. the work that he's done not only here in the senate, but having the many years of experience that he had in the house of representatives, the presiding officer, the senior senator from new york worked day and night making phone calls, personal

contacts with people in new york and new jersey who could call house members and have them pass legislation. on the way back from the joint session dealing with the electoral vote count, i met with -- he walked up and grabbed me -- didn't grab me, but we talked for several minutes walking back towards the senate, the majority leader in the house of representatives. he worked extremely hard on this. he worked hard on it, and i indicated to him that i received calls from people in new york who appreciated very much his efforts to try to get this thing passed. so, mr. president, i think it would be -- i really do believe that it's important that i have the record reflect the reason we've gotten as far as we have in sandy is because of the senior senator from new york. it's too bad that it's taking so long. when we had that devastating

katrina, we were there within days taking care of mississippi, alabama, and especially louisiana. within days. we are now past two months with the people of new york. and the people of new orleans, in that area, they were hurt, but nothing in comparison to what's happened to the people in new england. almost a million people have lost their homes. a million people lost their homes. that's homes. that's not people in those homes. so i think it's just really unfortunate that we don't have the relief for new york and new jersey and the rest of new england already. it has to be done. we have to meet the needs of the american people when an act of god occurs. so i, on behalf of, i think, the entire senate, certainly my democratic caucus, express my appreciation to the legislative

initiative and the legislative expertise -- let me say that again. expertise. mr. president, may the record reflect i said expertise. expertise of my friend from new york, an experienced legislator in the state of new york, house of representatives and the united states senate. really a masterful job. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of h.r. 41 received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 41, an act to temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the federal emergency management agency for carrying out the national flood insurance program. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: mr. president, this is a small part of what we have needed to do for the people of

new england. i'm glad we're able to get this done. i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and the senate proceed to vote on passage of this legislation. the presiding officer: without objection. if there is no further debate on the measure, all in favor say aye. all opposed nay. the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the measure is agreed to. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that from friday january 4 through monday, january 21 the majority leader be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today it recess until 11:30 a.m. on monday, january 21,2013, for the joint session of the inaugural ceremonies and that upon conclusion of that joint session the senate recess until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, january 22. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be

reserved for their use later in the day and following leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business for debate only until 12:30 with senators permitted to speak for ten minutes each and the senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15 to allow for weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it recess under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands in recess under the provisions of s. con res. 3 until 11:30 a.m., monday, january 21.

>> if i didn't have my case coming up i would like to come back with these gentlemen when it is over when they really lay down the law, what's going on in this country. i wish i wasn't on trial. i'd like to talk to united states of america was going on.

>> his family go all the back to italy. he settled here in rhode island, worked his way up. from low-level kinds of crime but eventually became the crime boss of new england. his headquarters on federal hill in providence, rhode island,. >> sometimes people think mob dies -- kind of guy. that's not true at all. they have people for an incredibly intelligent. they pull some scans, for example, on wall street that would make bernie madoff look like a biker. but, of course, they have this traditional kinds so-called organized crime which was shaking down people, extortion. of course, they viewed it as just protecting your business from other guys who might try to shake you down. of course, murder-for-hire, et cetera. the repertoire grew and grew as a result of their trying to protect their way of doing things. >> more from rhode island state rhode island state capitol as

booktv, american history tv and c-span local content vehicles look behind the scenes of history and literary life of providence, saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's booktv, and sunday at five on american history tv on c-span3. >> it's quite true that of people's history is a result of synthesizing the work of a great many other historians. what happened in the 1960s with the counterculture was that a whole new generation of young historians had come up, and they were in essence reevaluating all aspects of our past. spent biographer martin duberman on the life of a stored and accessed howard zinn saturday night at 10 eastern on after words on c-span2. look for more booktv online, like us on facebook.

>> last november, haitian president address members of european parliament to thank the eu for the continued support to his country. he also discussed current challenges he is facing since the 2010 earthquake devastated the island and left thousands homeless. this is half an hour. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: colleagues, honorable president martelly,

relations between the eu and haiti president are of particular importance to us. the earthquake which on the 12th of january 2010 devastated haiti, and over 220,000 victims, and 1.7 million people were made homeless as a result of this earthquake, led to unprecedented international solidarity, particularly on the part of europeans. the eu launched comprehensive humanitarian aid in rebuilding their country since 2010. the european union has been the most important donor when it comes to aid provided. your country continues to have

to cope with the disastrous consequences of the earthquake. and this year once again, a natural disaster struck your country. hurricanes isaac and sandy brought destruction in their wake with the devastating consequences on providing -- supplying a population with -- you can always count on close to operation and staunch support from the eu. we want to help your country. we want to help it to become an economically and politically stable country, a country which can provide for itself. and which can make a contribution itself to reducing

poverty. we as such hoped to establish a lasting from democracy for stability in haiti with perhaps hopes to your presidency. there are huge challenges that you have to face, president martelly, and believe us when we say that yesterday's debate and the parliamentary committees, we are aware of the dramatic nature of the challenges which you face three years after the catastrophe struck, 370,000 people in your country are in need of decent housing because they have to live in very difficult conditions and, therefore, giving them housing, giving them shelter is the utmost significance. the reconstruction process is something which, logically enough, has to be constructed as

quickly as possible. poverty has to be combated and we have to -- bolstering our democracy and the rule of law. so response has to take place particularly within the judicial sector. and i'd like to add with a view of debate on the finances to be provided by the eu, what we have to ensure is that are international commitment will continue to be lived up so we can continue -- with respect to your country, we have to keep our promises. and we have to continue to rally around specific haiti and show solidarity towards them. and you have a very ambitious reform program, and you have a reliable partner in the european parliament. but this partner will fight to ensure that the financial resources the eu needs in order to live up to its financial

commitments to countries such as haiti that we need to guarantee the financial resources, which is why fighting for an ambitious european budget is a way of guaranteeing that we can keep our promises of solidarity. [applause] [speakin [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i like to welcome you once again to the european parliament. [applause]

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, honorable members of the european power, i am deeply honored by the gesture being done to my country in my invitation to this prestigious parliament. and i would like to thank you for that. honorable members, i come here bearing our credo, same as that which helps you through adversity, one which opens the door to 30 years of growth. the same which helps you stand up again after the second world war. the same one which brought down the berlin wall. the same one which inspired the late and respected --

[inaudible]. i came here to tell you that come hell or high water, and despite its rudeness, haiti has not lowered its guard. slowly but surely, haiti is coming up again. and this is the good news i wanted to bring this house. this change of attack is owed to the courage of our population, and to the dissemination of our administration. but we also hold no small member as no small measure, to the act -- [inaudible] of europe. and i would thank you for that. i see in this sign of friendship which has been forged through history, and we cannot be indifferent as we confront the financial crisis which such as

you, and also affects us. i remain convinced that a united europe, one which is ever stronger will find the appropriate solutions in order to restore the economy to health. i remain convinced that no recession is forever. and the time that a crisis last will depend on the promise and -- the company measures. from mario draghi, only to name two, you have available to you some of the best brains on the planet which will help you to overcome the crisis and to find remedies. however, my presence here today is an opportunity thank you for your generosity and for your solidarity, and to recall that

no country can fight its way out of poverty simply by handouts and charity. [applause] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: secondly, haiti still needs your assistance, but the haitians, what they need is productive work. they need trained and they need direct investment. haiti is at the doors of the americas, north america, which is finding its way back to growth and this time did not have a crisis and has continued its growth. haiti is a strategic platform. it is an environment which is conducive to investment. it's a jumping off point which can permit european companies to

participate in the reconstruction of our country, and to prepare to reach out to the rest of the region. we need ports, airports. we need roads. we need electricity generation and hotels. we have fertile soil and we can easily begin to feed our population i can, and to export our services. haiti has a climate and is blessed also by geography. thousands of kilometers of white sand on its beaches, and nature which is still intact and unexplored, unchartered. [inaudible] our country has many natural deepwater harbors which are protected by nature to our population is young, courageous. with this ingenuity and its desire to work. and i'm here today to invite you

to drive the blessings of this country, and its extraordinary potential for investment. i'm here to invite you to work with us to regain our financial sovereignty and enable us to get back to the international money markets, the financial markets. i am here, together with you, to envision other new free trade agreements. call you to work together with us to the sign and to draw intelligence and lucrative projects. i would ask you to cooperate with us, take work together with us so that, together, we could find the best ways of funding them and financing them. many of you of academics dream of contributing to make our world one which is fair and more

equitable. send them to us. so they can participate in training our young people, and their professors, their academics. contribute with us to change yesterday. -- history. history which remind us of our links with spain, with the united kingdom, with france, italy, poland. the more recent history, which reminds us of our links before 1940 with germany. history which will note that europe, the european union is now making a big effort, ma the countries of africa, the caribbeans and the pacific in terms of development and cooperation. europe can be proud of -- the parts they occupy in the world. of its convictions, of the thinking which it has given the world, its responses to the

world's problems. it's roll side-by-side with the countries. european, young people in europe must know that the countries -- [inaudible] that it cannot close its borders. they cannot cut off its generosity and its brainpower. that is what could be put into a more -- one which is morally more economic, which is economically more moral, one which is safer in environmental terms, more democratic, more tolerant. strengthened and fortified by this friendship. seeking to throw off the old stereotypes and clichés, wishing to break the chains of under development and to exercise the demons. it wishes to fight the desert encroachment which is a threat. and once to open up for the year

-- world. for a year and half my administration has been hard at it with problems along the way, but no one can deny our group faces. this year, in haiti once again we have been affected to differing degrees by the tropical invest of isaac and sandy, which have been another ordeal for us. once again, the cost has been counted in human lives, in harvest, in people's houses, and once again the international community has been prompt incoming and stepping up to the plate, helping, salvaging and reconstructing. one day we must break through this vicious cycle. this vicious circle. we must replace it with production of circle. this is what we are destined to.

and this is the effort which will put haiti back on its feet. i will find -- haiti will find its feet again because we taken governance of the probability of the haitian territory, which is considerable. and that's not going to get any better in the years ahead if the climate change in 10 years to bear down on the caribbean islands. we will get back to our feet because in a stubbornly, and we are working to a different, strong, and we must go into preventive mode. prevention means putting bigger investment into regional planning. planning, regional planning means making the country less vulnerable. it means protecting the areas which been affected by the devastation, by the spread of disease in which lays the basis

for destruction. regional planning means avoiding, losing millions of dollars with every severe weather event. it means creating living environment for the people of haiti. might government has the instruments available, the tools available to it to make a go of regional planning. these instruments, the national center for information, supported by funds from the european union and the cat, for regional planning, which again you contribute to with your fund. i wish to thank you for this contribution. let me say that our administration will use these funds to the hilt. in that longer timeframe so that we can leave our fingerprints on the haitian area. as you can see in this very, --

[inaudible] front of those helping us. and as we say in my language, europe is at the forefront, it will continue to inspire everyone. and that's the world realizes that he cannot do it alone, in the region, in the larger region, on a regional basis so that we can find a single forest, so we can get each other mutual support while maintaining our identity. the caribbean region and the islands, large and small, without any exclusion will manage one thing, as a genuine union of states and will drive the full benefits -- by its extraordinary view. this is the price to pay for civility and, indeed, for peace in the world. but there is not -- because

these are new incentives for developments in a context where all the stakeholders must contribute to make sure that regularity and justice prevail. in the context of it, assistance to the countries of africa, the caribbean and pacific makes a major contribution. and the financial wherewithal in the european development fund under the heading regional integration are becoming more substantive, and part and parcel of this initiative. the haiti of today stands up to that, and is conscious of its place, its weight, its clout, it's roll in the region. but also the deficiencies, the gaps. we have realized that we are going to catch up.

we must stop the process of -- and we must work to overcome to fill those gaps and that is precisely what we're doing. every day we fill more of those gaps. this is not going to be a sprint. this is going to be we are in it for the long haul. and here again, europe is a source of inspiration for us. because there are some mistakes which are feeling the pressure and having done so for long time now. europe will be able to lay the basis for that to come back in financial terms out of this crisis. you are -- [inaudible] depends on transparency of the public sources. it means fighting for justice in terms of education for the population so that they can work with determination to make their contribution to rebuilding their

respective economies. the success knows no frontiers. and my officers will be dedicated, not only to getting haitians into the schools, to keeping up the fight against corruption, to establishing a rule of law, and my hope and trust is that the results will come. within less than two years, more than a million children have been left by the wayside now have free access to education. without any effort other than what has come from our treasury. already the effort for reconstruction is paying off with more than 1 million homeless people finding accommodation. and part of this, these

benefits, come from the money, from you, the taxpayer's. and i say to them, all of our gratitude, to ensure that their solidarity has not been wasted. those who are most vulnerable are the ones who benefit the most. we wish well a country based on rule of law, and it is taking shape in front of our eyes, but yet the institutions have been filled. our constitution has been amended, and despite its weaknesses it has not been promulgated. the magistrates funds their positions again. the constitutional court is now functioning. the electoral committee is taking shape. the elections for one-third of

the senate is on their way. citizens, freedoms are there as well. they're able to freely express themselves, and the opposition, even more so. corruption is using -- losing ground. and organized crime has no more sanction your and slowly but surely, justice is becoming more just. in the chapter of human rights, i am wrking actively to get ratification during my term in office of the agreements and conventions which will mean that there will be no prescription for those crimes pick your time limit on them, and with your help we will work to ensure that today's health, work

opportunities, equality of the genders as well, and the protection of children, all of these things will come to pass. the first omens are there. mr. president, honorable members of parliament, at the start -- [inaudible] and the founding fathers understood this, and the ecb countries must follow in their steps, as most haiti. your cooperation in that direction with your support for our major infrastructure works, our national roads number three were allowed, stretch most recently -- [inaudible] the commission spoke eloquently of this. and this motorway already is doing its part to make our economy more dynamic and to open up the whole country for the regional authorities.

the processing plants on the front years with our neighbors, the process on terrorists, our national markets, all of these things are pushing in the best direction beginning with economic growth and development. and this is why from the very inception of my term of office i have preached these paradigms and policies. often we have get into the well of europe, funds of wisdom cover your ideals and to your ancient civilization, what emanates from strasbourg is now entangled with your democratic ideals on this parliament. and you have been following us, you've been holding, standing by our sides. and thank you for the warmth of your reception as you welcome me here today, for which i thank you.

[applause] [applause] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: >> thank you very much indeed, mr. president. thank you for your words. thank you, too, for having reminded says of the founding fathers of europe. i think that your speech provided us with stimulating

encouragement, reminding us that the project is important not just for us but for other parts of the world, too. thank you ladies and gentlemen, for your attention, and i wish you success in your ongoing work. thank you. >> [inaudible conversations] >> the senate has gaveled out but before leaving, members pass legislation that provides $9.7 billion in funding for flood insurance brogue rams and in helping those affected by hurricanes in the.

the house passed the measure earlier today, and with a sense approval the bill now goes to the president for his signature. senators attended a joint session with the house earlier today to count the electoral votes for president and vice president. live coverage of the senate continues here on c-span2 when members return for legislative work at 10 a.m. january 22. >> earlier today, newly retired congressman barney frank said that you like to serve as a temporary successor to massachusetts senator john kerry who is currently the nominee for secretary of state. according to "the associated press," mr. associated press, mr. franks told msnbc that he asked governor deval patrick to appoint him as the state interim senator into a special election is held to permanently fill senator kerry's seat. mr. frank is 72 and served 16 terms in the u.s. house. when he retired he was the chairman of the house financial services committee.

>> the big discussions that i remember was what is richard nixon going to do? >> i can remember going home that night scared to death. this is like a timebomb. this thing gets out in the press, anderson gets it going, it's a disaster for all of us. >> johnny walters came to me and said john dean, the president's counsel has just brought me a list of i think 50 names of people. and once they full investigation of them. that's a very unpleasant thing to happen to you. >> it was shortly after the farewell speech, al haig, chief of staff called me. i can never exactly what he said, in effect, we forgot one thing. i said, what's that? he said, we forgot a resignation letter. i said that's interesting. i will be interested in reading it. he said no, you don't get it. you need to write it spent i thought the best way was not for me as a story. i'm a trained historian, but for

the players to keep people living from that era to tell the story themselves. so i thought the best way to do this was to start a video oral history program that involved the nixon players, and the watergate drama. on the left and the right, to have them tell the story, and then to use portions of the story in the museum to let visitors understand the complexity of the constitutional problem. >> the former head of the nixon presidential library and museum details the library's oral history project sunday night at eight on c-span's q&a. >> last november, david axelrod sat down for a conversation with students about his life and career in journalism and politics. mr. axelrod advice president obama during both presidential campaigns, as was his four years in the white house. held at the university of

chicago, this is an hour and a half. >> one of the best things about sitting here across from you having this conversation tonight, for all of us had been part of the institute staff, we have been i think wondering what you've been thinking, what this experience has been like for you over the last year and a half, two years. and so tonight we get a chance to hear for the first time what this campaign and your reaction has been. >> thank you very much. also i want to thank dean boyer for the incredible support the university has given the institute of politics, including making it possible for us to hire such extraordinary people such as steve edwards and aaron and all the others who are working on this. [applause] >> thank you. is you been one of what i've been doing, i've been wondering what you've been doing. >> we've got to catch up.

>> exactly. >> let's jump to i think that the question that republicans are wondering. disappointed by the outcome. the democrats are wondering who are elated by this outcome, and that is given the conventional wisdom around this campaign, the president's approval rating that were barely above 50%, often dipping below to the unemployment rate of around 8%. gdp growth stock at around 2%. the conventional wisdom was that this president should not be reelected if you were to play along with what people were saying. as you take a look at what happens two weeks ago now, how do you assess the? >> let me just say first, i made a pretty good living and politics are betting against conventional wisdom and i think that it's a general principle of mind that the conventional wisdom is always wrong. and it was wrong here are it was wrong here because what we often do in political circles, in

journalism, is we look at what happened at the last election, or past elections come and we think that's prescriptive for what's going to happen in the future. it's a much more dynamic process than that. and the assumption was well, no president has ever been elected under franklin roosevelt with unemployment-7.2%. but no president other than franklin roosevelt has ever inherited a situation such as dire as barack obama walked into. the american under -- the american people understood it. we did probably four or 500 focus groups during the course of the last few years. >> four or 500? >> that's against. it's probably wrong. now that i think about it, but -- >> but a lot. >> certainly several hundred focus groups. and next time we meet i will have the exact number. but we spoke to thousands and thousands of people in a very intimate way, and invariably

people would say, we are not happy where things are at. and we were talking to swing voters, voters who could vote potentially for us or against it. not for people who are all force or all against us. and invariably, they would say things are not what we like them, but they were terrible when he got there, and maybe we should give you a little more of a chance. that was always the case. so the% benchmark never meant anything. but i will tell you, steve, that the day after that catastrophic midterm election, the shellacking as the president called it, i said to him, you know, i really think the seeds of your reelection were planted yesterday. the reason i felt that way was because the gravitational pull was within the republican party from the right, became so strong in that midterm election. it was clear to me that any republican candidate was going to have to deal with those

forces to become the nominee, ma was going to have to go through the tollbooth and pay a very heavy toll to become the nominee in a party that was where, where the gravitational pull, as i call it, was against immigration reform, was very much against choice, was against gay marriage, was against a lot of things that were running against the demographic and social trends of the country and where the country was moving. and that proved out, you know, mitt romney made a series of bargains in order to become the nominee of the republican party in order to beat rick perry. he moved to the right of rick perry on immigration in order to beat rick santorum. he moved to the right of him on social issues. he took the grover norquist pledge, and did all the things that were required of a potential republican nominee. biting each of those steps, he

made it harder for him to win a general election. and he brought to this some strengths, and you know, the other thing i tell the president four years ago was that romney was likely nominee because i believe in this theory of optimism. whoever the incumbent is, people are always looking for the remedy, not a replicate. and that romney would represent a stark difference from obama, businessmen, grounded, you know, not a visionary, not an orator. >> so you thought you would be the nominee? was that throughout the entire process? >> i had a few moments of doubt, as i suspect he may have. at how he got through those moments of doubt was to do what i said, to move to the right. and with each step i think he made himself more vulnerable, and you know, in the abstract

from his profile as a businessman was a positive, even to the final day, it was a positive. the concept of a businessman who knows how to make, to create jobs and so on. that was their message, and that was not a bad message. >> you also told mike allen of politico that you didn't think the romney campaign emphasize that enough spent i didn't think and decide who he was in a. i don't think they flushed them out enough. i think -- to think about running for president is you have to be fully dimensional. it's not like any other office. people need to know who you are. they need to feel comfortable with who you are. and so whatever message you build has to be built around your biography, and it has to be compelling. the romney campaign spent at least 90% of its money in the primaries on negative ads. never spent time flushing him

out, you know, developing a portrait of who romney was. after he won the nomination, we expect the first thing they would do would be to do that, and just create a stronger sense among the american people as to who he was. they never did that. and that, of course, left an opening for him to be defined around some of the business practices that have become well known now. >> i want to talk more about the general election campaign and how that played out, tactically and otherwise. let's stay with the chronology. you talked about kind of the metanarrative as you saw, this idea that 2010 might bode well for the president. what was happening behind the scenes of the presidents reelection campaign during this time when you're looking at data? what are -- >> first of all let me make a point. i think it's important because the iop, and my basic approach to politics is, is rooted in the belief that it is more than just a game of tactics and strategi

strategies. it means something. and what was fundamental and but ultimately make a difference for us, and we can get into the particulars of it, of aspects of why we won, but was the fact that the president fundamental message, and it was when he ran on in 2008, was that we need to not just rebuild our economy but reclaim the security that so many americans have lost, economic security, that we need to put people back to work but we also need an economy in which -- who was an essential recognition that that funding a compact that we all thought of as the american dream had been shredded and that there were things we needed to do to fix that. and that was essential. it was clear that governor romney and the other side had a much different view, which is more of a top down kind of approach. that is, folks at the top did

well, that prosperity, their prosperity would lead to prosperity of the country. we just had a much different view. our notion was at the middle class thrives in the country itself will thrive and be stronger. so there was really something big at stake here beyond all that. and i want to emphasize that. by getting back to your question, you know, whether that message was resident or not and with whom was part of what we needed to find out. we did spend a lot of time and effort on research talking to voters, ethnographic study of thousands of voters to really get a sense of what was going on in allies, what was really important and so on. and this fundamental concern about the economy and about their own economic prospects was central to those concerns but

and i really think that narrative was the one that played through big industries. we also, getting back to my point about the primaries understood, you know, our country is becoming more diverse, that every election, that diversity was more prominent in terms of the share of the electorate, that latino voters represented an african-american voters, we knew that women would continue to vote in larger numbers than men. and often in a different way. and so, you know, we mapped out a plan and a strategy to make the case strongly to those constituencies while governor romney was separating himself in many ways from those constituencies. we were working hard to develop and burnish our support there,

which was strong to start with. so, you know, and central of that was really doing a lot of compilation of data, about voters around the country, about, you know, tracking what our supporters had been in 2000, many of them were mobile and were no longer aware, finding them, getting them reregister. registration was a big part of it. and really identifying that vote that we needed to win. developing an ongoing conversation with these voters so we could mobilize them at the appropriate time. >> and i've heard that is included cross-referencing not only voting behavior but, yeah, social activities and the kinds of, the kinds of films they like. all sorts of behavioral data you are able to cross. >> we live in a time where so

much happens online in the social media. , including by the way, so yes, a lot of information a cruise there, but also that's how people share information. one of the interesting things that we learned was that, the people were much more apt to accept information from friends on facebook or elsewhere, twitter, than they were, you know, if we're simply as a campaign to send them information or information they received on some broadcast. so, you know, really develop into social networks was essential to our strategies. >> i want to come back to the point you made about tactics being not nearly as important as you convey a message. you know one of the criticisms leveled at the campaign was that it was too tactical. it was a visionary enough. what's your response to that?

this reelection wasn't about the bigger picture. >> i will just go back to what i said before. i think it was about big things. it was about how we think about this economy. it was about whether tax cuts at the top were more valuable, growing the kind of country we need to believe in the kind of economy we believe in, investing in things like education and research and development, investing in clean energy technology, investing in infrastructure. and dealing with our deficit and a more balanced way. it was about what our obligations are to each other. you know, it was about big things. those are very, very big things. i will say this. for all the critique about whether our campaign -- the preoccupation of people who write about it, and i used to do that for a living, so, you know,

i don't try to separate myself from them. many are my best friends, you know. ..

when they would drive coverage. the gallup poll was wildly deficient throughout this race and, you know, just days before the election they said we were seven points behind. >> when you have that kind of cycle happening -- >> we had a wonderful group and campaign. we had a very solid data, and we had all kinds of fail-safe apparatuses to check our conclusions, and we were very comfortable for where we were in the race. our supporters would read this and send especially washington, the world's biggest. people would get nervous, people

would get worried. when those things happen you find everyone is very generous with their advice. it's the frustration was less that we were worried where we were that it would affect other people's behavior and it would create disillusionment among our supporters, so we spent much of the campaign fighting back against some of the polls and was remarkable about the race just looking at the data it was and how volatile it was, it was house devotee. from february through november, you know, we were running our own data generally a2 to four-point lead, and we never fell behind. there was a period in september after the convention we had a strong convention and they had a not so strong convention that

gave authority% take and we had six or 7% lead in the battleground state largely independent voters word healing and moved away. he got those back pretty quickly after the debate which we strategically planned to add a little suspense. [laughter] >> there's a lot of those elements to pick up on. >> let's go with the first debate first. you talk about it and you've answered the question about how the president would respond in the second debate. take me to the moment the debate is ending and before you walk outside to address the meeting. but was going on behind the

scenes, what was going on in your mind? >> i was thinking can't someone else do this? the truth of the matter is i didn't feel at that moment -- i knew it was a good night for romney. i didn't feel the president had substantively done as badly as, you know, some of our friends. msnbc and a few others, but supporters, andrew sullivan was on suicide watch after that debate and so, you know, i didn't think it was as bad, and one of the reasons the president was a little off kilter as i really believe the audacity of

romney's repositioning in that debate was so remarkable that i certainly had stepped out when i went to talk with the media. but, you know, it wasn't something that i looked forward to any more than i would a root canal. >> what was the biggest surprise >> you know, a big a answer is how few surprises there were, and was partly because we had i think prepared very well. we knew where the race was. >> you were confident throughout supporters were not nearly as confident. >> i really was confident because i felt we had the best messenger and the biggest message. >> what are the moments you started to say wait a second, this thing could turn on us if

we are not careful. >> the closest you came to ase after the first debate, but i didn't really believe that it was a hit to the main engine. i thought what would have been did happen which is that he got back the republicans that he had lost and the race would tighten up and that's what happened. really it happened after the course of three or four days. the sunday after the debate which i believe was a thursday the race leveled off and it never changed. we widened out a little bit, but it never changed much after that. but in terms of surprises, i was surprised a little bit about some of the things the other side did. i was surprised by the fact that the super pak which spent an unbelievable amount in this race didn't go on in the air against

this and the greatest fear is they would go up and use their money to attack us when we were not fortified to respond. the air defenses were not ready. we just didn't have the resources to do that and they give us a pass for whatever reason and i don't know why that was. i was surprised about what i mentioned earlier when the romney campaign didn't flush him out in a more substantial way when they had the opportunity to do that. i was surprised by the choice of the vice presidential candidate. not as surprised as when john mccain. >> it surprised me because i thought that it was a choice that would play very much to the base of the party of the time he needed to broaden out his appeal.

one of the things i felt about the romney campaign is they were trying to grapple with the challenge because of all the conventional wisdom that you cited earlier was enough. the game was to get to the next square and the concern was a very conservative group with many different candidates and they never fully embraced romney so we felt ryan's race was in part an effort that went well. the other thing that surprised me is closer to the house republicans who were pulling down nine, 10%.

when you think about that they have a margin of error of plus or minus 4%. so a few more points and it could be that everybody in america, so to pick someone that he had identified as the into intellectual leader of the republican party is clearly a significant leader of that caucus was surprising to me and why in the privatization of social security did the medicare voucher idea that it almost guaranteed they were going to have a lengthy debate about those ideas, and so instead of talking about the economy which is where they said they wanted this to play out in the debate about the economy and medicare and i don't think that was to

their benefit. if you look at florida and other places the numbers of the senior citizens were anticipated. >> i believe it goes something like the number is never as smart as you think you are. >> you aren't as dumb as you look when you lose. >> yeah, so i've had experience. we've been talking about from your perspective some of the shortcomings of the romney campaign. what were the things that you think "the washington post" just a couple days ago -- >> that's for sure. look, i think it's important for us to carry through on the commitments of the campaign. you can't treat the campaign as

a one-off and then pursue a different agenda, and i don't think the president will. there is a little bit of challenge and this challenge of how we build the economy in the 21st century that offers the greatest powerful opportunity for the largest member of people, and that's going to require a sustained long-term commitment to some of the things i mentioned here earlier, the education to research and innovation and technology to clean energy to 21st century infrastructure and getting our institutional health care reform through just to see the modern oversight of the financial system, so there are so many things we have to follow through in order to move the ball down the field on that larger question. in terms of what the republican party did right, i mean they

raised money well. seriously, they did that very well. we never expected romney to be able to raise the resources that he raised after running this primary race, and ended at spending quite a bit at the end. we made a decision that we would spend -- we would overspend from the standpoint of budgeting in the months from may to august on the theory that television advertising is an pact fall in the presidential race in proportion to the attention people are paying. so why september and october, people are disregarding that and they are just watching the coverage and watching debates and it's very hard to point -- i can't think of a presidential race that was one on the basis of a television ad that ran after labor day.

and so, you know, but i think it was a small plan on our part but they had a lot of money at the end, and that was a source of some concern. >> i want to pick up on the last statement. my chronology is what about 88 or. >> we are talking about a second term of president obama some suspected a lot of hands are being strong out in supporters to the sedate who saw the campaign that was as focused as any, as disciplined as any for some reason they would say not being able to effectively communicate the message, not being dealt effectively really follow through on some of the

plans that went over the public behind the plans when you talk to supporters who were disillusioned and spectacle -- skeptical. >> i was with barack obama in 2008 when he promised to win the war in iraq and he won the war in iraq. i was with him when he promised to pass comprehensive health reform and he passed comprehensive health reform. i was with him when he talked about asking the don't ask don't tell policy and he ended the dhaka ask don't tell policy. i was with him when he talked about making the supreme court more reflective of the country, and i saw him point to the women and putting the first latina to the supreme court. i was with him when he saved this economy from sliding into the second great depression and what i'm proud of is that all the time that i was with him in the white house and i was the keeper of the polling, each time

iowa reported to him on the sort of political calculation he was always dismissive. i say i like about him is that he listened to me so little. i will give you an example. i was in the room when he decided that we needed to intervene to save the american auto industry. today that may seem like a no-brainer but back then it was pulling miserably. even in michigan people didn't want us to intervene to save the auto industry. we had a lengthy meeting with the team. they describe the steps that would be necessary and the probability and success. i reported on the polling and he said i completely a understand why people feel that way. but if we don't do anything, we are going to lose in that industry a million jobs will go

with it in the midst of the worst recession since the great depression. so if we can get them to rationalize their industry and start making cars people want to buy and the 21st century they have a good chance to succeed we ought to take that shot, and we did. and i think results are clear now. i can categorically report to you that there wasn't anybody that was telling them that taking on health care was a good political issue. even in the campaign in the general election in 2008 what a difficult issue it was and the fear is that mccain was going to run against us on health care in the general election, and we kind of took the offensive on it to try to stop that. but, you know, the president said we've been trying to solve this problem for 60 years. if we don't do well in the first two years, it's never going to get done. he said we are not here to husband our popularity admired

on the shelf, we are here to use it and make a permanent difference for the better in the life of this country. succumbing you know, and i was with him last or i was with him the day before osama bin laden was killed. i go back that evening at the white house correspondents' dinner so i went back to help with jokes and we had lunch and at the lunch he had just been down to alabama where there had been a terrible storm and he was telling me about people he met down there and he had seen gabrielle giffords after she was shot and hadn't imagine she could recover. the speech writers came in and we went through the jokes.

we got through a joke and the joke was poor tim pawlenty. he had so much promise but for that nay bin laden. obama gets to the joke and says let's take this out. he says that's so yesterday. [laughter] but, you know, someone says we can stick in hosni who is still in power at the time, and obama said yeah, let's do that. and she said i don't think that's funny at all. [laughter] he's the president, we put in hosni. the next night -- my wife, susan, sitting over here -- where are you? yes, say hello to my wife,

susan. [applause] >> so, k-12 school. that's one of her many distinctions. [applause] but -- so i went to sleep early and susan woke me up and said they just got bin laden. i through the sheets off and look at my blackberry which is blowing up and turn on the tv and i realized as i was watching the president because he knew at the time the we had gotten together that he had ordered this mission. he knew if it had gone poorly moly what lives be lost and our security royal but his political career would probably be over. and he was completely, because he had felt he had done the right thing. so i hear what the reporters

have to say and i love and appreciate the supporters but i am very, very proud of this president and what he accomplished under very difficult circumstances. [applause] >> you got your start in politics as the fight-year-old kid i understand. the lower east side of manhattan >> yes, yes. i grew up -- i don't know how many people were from new york city but i grew up in a housing development for the returning war veterans coming and my mother was at work and there was a woman that took care of me named jesse very that came down from harlem. a great lady, kind of classic american story she came up from the south, didn't have much of it for all the education that kind of like a ph.d. in life.

and she heard that john f. kennedy was coming to the community. it is ten days before the 1960 election. she thought i should see it so she could not of a female boss went on the street which is a huge boulevard and i watched this canyon fill in with people and this very charismatic young man spoke and i didn't know what he was saying, i didn't understand, i wasn't that precocious but i knew it seemed really important and exciting and now i know what he said, i'm not running on the platform. it says if you elect me things will be easy being an american in 1960 is a hazardous duty filled with peril. but also with hope and we will decide which path we take care

if i thought those were -- i thought back about those words quite a bit over the last four years because there was a parallel, another young president coming into the office at a time of great peril. but i also think a lot of the woman that took me there because she had a very difficult life, and yet she had a hope about the future, and i think about what she would have thought knowing that that little boy she put on the mailbox was working for the president of the united states to the president of the united states would be an african-american man named barack obama. it's an incredible thing. >> was your household a household where politics and current events were part of the conversation on a regular basis? >> yeah, they were, they were. and i was part of my interest. i had back in new york city public schools a great teacher early, i skipped second grade,

in first and third grade our teacher mrs. rauf would read the newspaper and we would talk about martin luther king and that was right in the middle of that and of the civil rights movement i was just a junkie by the time i was 9-years-old i was handing out leaflets for robert kennedy and when i was 10i made a big decision and broke with the democratic party and went to work for john lindsay running for the mayor of new york but i wouldn't work for him at the headquarters, i want to the liberal party come on new york you could run on to. i was handed out leaflets on the street corner in new york, and some woman felt this was cute this ely handing out leaflets, and she asked me why they make the case for lindsey and got an early start of my political career and made the case against

the opponent as well. we to get back to the liberal party headquarters and open it up and there were all these doughnuts and a lot of $10 bills and so in one of my early lessons in politics, the district leader grabbed the money and said you can keep the doughnuts. [applause] >> you also sold a bumper stickers. >> those of us that have lived through it remember that is a time of great idealism and the campaign was infused with idealism as tragically as it ended, and when senator obama was thinking about running for president we had a long talk about it, and i said to him you

know, you are too young to remember that, but we haven't really had a campaign since that time that was really that energize people in that way, and especially young people coming and we have to try to build that campaign, and i am proud that we were able to do that. i thought about that when it comes to the headquarters in this campaign to the hundreds and hundreds of incredibly gifted well motivated kids who want to change the world. that is why they were there. >> certainly the president seemed to feel that way as well speaking to the staff. >> it was an incredibly moving moment to the dalia seemed a little of it the night before. of course he taught devotees magnificent people that worked with us for a year and a half in

2007 and 2008 and talked about what it meant to him that they were so devoted lot to him, but to the country and the vision of what the country could be coming and he kind of choked up and it was an incredible moment and what you couldn't see on the tape is after he had this very inspiring talked there were hundreds of them they went around to every single one of them and give them a hug and talk to them and encouraged them and i saw most of them the next night it was a going away party for the staff and every single one of those kids you could tell this was something they were going to hold for the rest of their lives, you know, as the list of things i'm proud of is i'm proud of that this president has helped inspire a bunch of young people to get involved.

>> we are here having the candidate to discussion on the campus of chicago on politics that will be housed and thinking about your time here some years ago you had a chance to go to colin the university and president obama had a chance to touch, so tell me who david axelrod is at 20-years-old as you understand writing for a community newspaper and thinking about the world of politics here in chicago. how are you envisioning your future career at that point? >> i can to chicago for a couple of reasons, i had a homeroom teacher in high school who said and grinned to give you one piece of advice. the city get a map, draw a circle 600 miles and go to school outside because your

parents will never surprise you if they have to take an airplane. [laughter] i wanted to go to school in an urban area and in a place where the politics were rich and this was after the democratic convention and the machines were still alive and politics were vital. they would take advantage of everything this institution has to offer and a little frustrated because there was no institute of politics. there were no outlets. the statute is passed on this and i said that i couldn't find anybody that wanted to talk about anything that happened after the year 1800. [laughter]

so i found other outlets for my interest and was riding and we went back to new york after my freshman year and got a job at the newspaper in greenwich village and use that experience to leverage the spot that we stayed and some of you know great illinois hired me and that isn't why he is great but it influenced my thinking to write a political column for the herald of, and i was a stringer for publications. this sort of became the focus of my activity when i was here but was largely to stick my interest in politics. but i didn't have any life plan. i didn't expect i would be working for the president of the united states. i didn't know that i wasn't going to be a newspaperman. i really love the journalism. i still love and believe in

journalism. i worry a little bit about, you know, what's happening to it and whether people can find ways to monetize good journalism so that there's an incentive to keep doing it, keep publishing at. but, you know, i always tell young people it's very -- you can make a 30 year plan, but it's very rare that you could actually execute on it and better to follow your passion if you can and go where life leads you and it's an extraordinary up to and including the ability to help start this institute. >> right out of college they are steeped in the culture and reality of politics and you told

me in passing once that everything you come to know about politics really began from that experience. what did you learn about politics from covering it as a reporter? >> tip o'neill said all politics is local, and i actually thought about that as i travel around the world with the president and heard foreign leaders and their aides talk about the challenges they were facing, you know, so at the same time that they were all getting together to engage and discuss about the problems of the world, they were looking over their shoulder at, you know, their own constituencies, the other party, so you know, getting to sort of the motivation, the root of the interest. statistical two different having spent time all over the country is their something different here? >> well, that seems like a

leading question. i think there is a rich tradition in chicago politics and there is a tradition of politicians trying to get rich. the first is good and the second is not. people are passionate about their politics and politics is very local and i admire i'm a big aficionado of politics than a lot around the country in part because this is where the rubber hits the road and they deal with life-and-death issues and they are responsible so that's something that i think there's something very good about that. obviously there is a tradition of corruption that has touched our politics and, you know, the last two governors are in prison it is and a shining note for the land of lincoln but i think

there are some very good people who care deeply about the constituents. >> we are going to be taking questions from the audience as also in a few minutes we are going to bring out the microphone and asked that up behind the microphone and if some of the members of the advisory committee are up there now so for those of you that you have a question, please, go ahead and make your way down to this microphone on either side and we will take some questions in just a second. there is so much and fascinated by in terms of your transition from journalism to political consulting and all that kind of stuff, but let me jump to the institute of politics because it speaks to your interest trying to improve the political culture broadly speaking. why start this year and now?

>> magnificent institution as this is and it attracts such incredible students that there could be more to help expose students to the possibilities of a career in a public arena and i don't just mean as a candidate, but as advisers and policy people and speech writers and the whole gamut that go into the public discourse and journalism itself and the analysis. all of it is very vital, and i want to expose students to practitioners in the field who are good examples and give them a chance, give them a model to think about as they are choosing careers because we need talented

well motivated people. it's easy to turn away. there's a lot about our politics that is frustrating and dispiriting and it's easy to turn away from it but if you turn away then you are yielding to those things no politics dispiriting. the only way to truly change it is to get into the arena and indifference. and in this auditorium and on this campus there are young people who are uniquely yclept to make a difference and when the president cheered up -- teared up at that evened his i feel good about the future because i know every person in this room is going to make a difference, and so, i have run my races and i want to encourage young people to get in the arena

and run. >> there is more that is asked about so let's move to the question from the audience. start on the left side first. >> hello, mr. axelrod to read at the start of the conversation you mentioned something about the gallup polls not matching up with your own internal estimates, and i was curious light what kind of internal estimates you have. is it similar to the model built by native silver or other quantitative models? and how much do you think that quantitative methods play and the success of a political campaign? >> first of all there a more famous alumni of the institution [laughter] well, i think it's important to know where you are in the race and the goal is to win, so it's important to know where you are

and also how people react to a whole range of issues and ideas and concepts and words, so research is important but it's only valuable if it's accurate, so we invested a lot and we have a large number of smart people, and i should at this juncture deliver a little bit of an advertisement. for the winter we are going to be spending six weeks -- and i'm not supposed to announce this? [laughter] >> this would be an awkward time to say yes. >> we are going to spend six weeks trailing into the presidential race and one of those is going to be on polling and research and a part of what we will evaluate is the public poll, why did they differ so greatly from the data that we had and so on, so they really are important.

i think like anything else, if you have used them, there can be a negative in a campaign if you treat paul sing as a connected dhaka where you are just trying to match up with where the republican opinion is at the time, i think it can be pulling can be destructive. but if you use it to understand how to present ideas that you have and see how people react to them and what nuances are important and which ones are not if you use it to understand where your strength is and where to put your resources, its invaluable. you can't run a campaign without good research. it's like building a 747 and then leading the system off. you have to have it but you have to make sure the guidance system works and that you land in the pacific ocean. >> let's take a question from this side.

>> previously you mentioned was a surprise that mitt romney chose paul ryan has his running mate. who did you think he was going to take if you had a pick? >> it's a really good question. for the longest time i thought he might pick tim pawlenty, and i will tell you why. first of all, pawlenty for the moment he got out of the race became a good spirit or he was a better surrogate for romney than he was for himself. but running in these national races is really, really hard. i remember the day that obama -- we were leaving denver after the convention of 2008, and we learned that on the plane mccain had chosen sarah palin. so i go to the front of the plane, senator biden is up there, the newly designated vice presidential candidate, and i told obama what had happened and he said yeah i wonder why he did

that and he goes through all the permutations. and he says you know what, i think i reasonably smart. and he said it took me like six months to figure out how to be a presidential candidate, how to deal with the spotlight and this national politics. he said she may be the smartest politicians effort and she may be able to come out of alaska after a year and a half and handle all of this but i give it three weeks and then we will know if this is real. three weeks to the day she did her interview with katie couric, literally today that effectively ended it for her. i thought they might make a conservative jurist to pick someone that had at least a taste of the national stage or -- and this was more of a consensus on the political community that they might pick rob portman, the senator from ohio because he was so critical

and he was a center-right conservative that could appeal may be more broadly, so i think a lot of people were surprised by the choice. >> de degette could have changed the outcome? >> you can say anything. the polling wasn't all that strong. he doesn't that big a presence, but i'm sure that there is a lot of reflection on that. >> this has to do with the point on the adjustment period that president obama felt he had to undergo to become a presidential candidate. help me understand. so you run for governor.

what's different? >> the intent scrutiny everywhere he went. most candidates get to begin with very little press or no press. he came so it was like sometimes you start a plane in new haven and take it too broad broadway and he opened on broadway and they were in the front row from the first day said as he was developing as a presidential candidate they were already evaluating him and if you look at the press the first 45 months, it was very negative. he was underperforming. spent a lot of critique in the early debate. >> yes, he said at the time i'm not a good candidate but i will become one, i'm going to learn how to become a good candidate and he challenged himself and he did become --

>> and all your experience people talk about for a campaign to be successful you need fund-raising organizations and all these things. what are the intangibles the need to separate? >> i think authenticity honestly. i thought about this a lot when i was watching the other campaign, but george burns used to joke that all you need to succeed in show business is sincerity and if you can take that, you've got it made. but i think genuine authenticity is important particularly in a presidential candidate, and barack obama is very and that undergirded us in many ways and in this campaign people felt comfortable with who she was. they are not going to be surprised by him. they knew what drove him and

they felt comfortable. >> another question from this side. >> after the citizens united supreme court decision, there were a lot of worries about the effect that there would have on campaigns especially with of the donors giving millions and millions of dollars to one campaign, and i was wondering to what extent did super pacs affect the side? cow found a door they and how much have they come to light and is their something to be hopeful about? >> the thing to be hopeful about is a billion dollars or so were spent and then a billion more and they were able to win. hundreds of millions of dollars were spent against democratic

candidates by some of these big republican supertax and i only say republican. there were democratic super pacs as well. a lot of it was in the high-profile senate races and all those targets lost -- almost all the candidates they support it lost. i'm not saying that money didn't mean anything. i think it meant something and it put enormous pressure on the democratic candidates and super pacs supporting them to try to match it but i wasn't determinative peter was more so in congressional races where people get less information and are more subject to being influenced. but here in our own area we saw some races where quite a bit of money was spent against bill

foster and he still won overwhelmingly $6 million super pacs money was spent. in the race she was still able to win. i don't think it is a healthy thing for our body of politics to have people writing to income of 30, 40 million-dollar tax but it is a reality that we may have to live with if we can't change it and i think we should try to change for whatever means are appropriate or available and if the supreme court changes over time they may want to reevaluate some of this, but i feel the ginnie mae be out of the bottle so i am heartened by the fact that we were able to overcome that in this election and not every candidate is going to have the particular advantages that barack obama had both in terms

of his base and ability to raise money. so it is a continuing concern. >> what's take another question from this side. spinning there seems to be a growing consensus or perception that unlike past democratic candidates president obama hasn't left a sort of ideological format for what it means to be a democrat so he had the democratic philosophy there doesn't seem to be an equivalent with president obama sold i've been gathering the party is growing so big on the right that there could be in the coming years a sort of battle for the old party for the next four to eight years. do you see in this obama feige some sort of civil war occasion happening or --

>> even in the next four years. >> i would tell you what this president stands for and we talked earlier about the fight we had, i was reading a book some of you may have read that cannot last year by clarence darrow and it was excellent. he talked about some of the fights in the 19th century and early 20th century during the gilded age and the progressive era and so much of the dialogue was a little bit more heated, but the fundamental philosophical debate was the same one that we had in this election do we believe the strength of the country and strength of the economy comes from, you know, the broad number of people in the middle class and those working on getting to the middle class and do we believe that it comes from the wealth generating capacity of those at the top.

this has been a longstanding debate and i think it was very vital in this election and president obama can carry the banner high and proud and well. the things he has done with it is health reform or education reform, making higher education more affordable, expanding pell grants, creating the consumer financial protection bureau and that one thing which is to create a country and an economy in which we've got a vital middle class and the tax policy reflected that as well and opportunities broadly available. that is in the mainstream of the democratic party. we can have a debate about a means of achieving that and i

think we have to do some soul-searching about how in the 21st century we achieve those goals and with all of the avenues and pathways that made sense 50, 60, 70 years ago are still valid today. many of them may be and some of them may not. but on the fundamental goal he's in the tradition of space parties and in the progressive tradition and that's a lot of with this election was about. >> this election to much of the advertising was predominantly negative. and i would like to ask about -- i know that both sides contain engagement being responsible for a woman losing her insurance.

that seems to degrade the whole political process and i wondered what your comments on the negative advertisements. some of it as a degree of the political process and i saw many of them in the last campaign and many of them aimed at us. on that particular area i went to straighten one thing that that wasn't an ad from the obama campaign it was from a super pak. we made clear that we didn't think that was appropriate. to accuse romney of being responsible for the woman's death was inappropriate. i should point out it ran exactly one time in the book, a big country, and partly because we made it known publicly. so, now legitimate issues about

the business practices and i really believe their work and it goes to this larger debate which is if you outsource jobs and cut benefits and destroy pensions to bankruptcy, profit of the bankruptcy slowly lose their pensions and their jobs and benefits, is that a good -- it may be a good business practice for you, is it good for the country? no. there are legitimate issues, but that isn't one of them. it isn't an appropriate and coming and we said so. but to the broad question, this was a very tough election. was tough on both sides. as i said earlier, more than 90% of them as he ran for - and we

have to make this case as well. >> he spent a lot of time and money especially during the key period that we talk about really trying to define romney. >> we did, just to get the sequencing down we spent a month in the battleground state running positive advertising about the president. that's how we began our media campaign. >> the thinking being to show up the accomplishments. >> we thought we had plenty to share but it was clear if we allowed romney to be this kind of local chamber of commerce president the was the image people had that wouldn't be in

our interest speaking to showcase the desired take away you wanted voters to have experience in the ads that run against governor romney, what were the things he wanted them to believe about governor romney? >> basically that he was out of touch with the economic experience and that his fundamental view of the economy wasn't one that incorporated and and frankly with a 47% take cannot come it was a pretty strong ratification of the few curious too he said it was the greatest gift to happen in the campaign because it reinforced the narrative that you were trying to -- >> look, these kinds of things either are meaningless when they try to make the heating bill and that sort of thing it fell on deaf ears because people didn't

believe that is the president was saying. it wasn't in a statement, it was like an essay. obviously his remarks after the election seemed to reinforce that. this was his philosophy. this was his view and a was a fundamentally different view than the president, and we made the case. we just made it on a sustained basis and ultimately i think it was the case that carried. senator went to get to more questions in the audience but let me go back to the broad question how do you defend yourself? >> the profession. we talked about politics and the question a loaded to the negativity and politics and pulling. there are many people that say you want to look at particular causes and forces that short of to to sort of shaped the climb at. what is your response to that

broad criticism of the political consultants being sort of associated with of the worst elements of the politics as opposed to the best? >> some are. you can do this any principled way and you can do it in an unprincipled way. campaigns are hard. if you read american history, then you very quickly realize that our campaigns are not any more -- thir hoadly much less brutal than some of the campaigns of the past but because of the amplification of the internet and so on, there is an immediacy and the broadness so if someone says something in topeka kansas it goes around the world almost immediately or if someone says something like governor romney in the room of supporters that he thought was an intimate setting, it ultimately is changed, but look, we have had strong come strongly

contested elections throughout history because there are big things at stake. if you do your job right you want to make sure people understand what it is that you are fighting for and against so that choice is clear to read i think if it goes to the fabrications or worse, you know, then it's something else. >> another question from this side of the room. islamic my question is do you believe that your campaign has increased or decreased on the politics? >> i think that our campaign has

increased the partisanship is that what you are asking? >> deepak optimism that -- >> i don't know whether our campaign or their campaign did that but i think the voters did. i think you can see it already there is a different tone in washington. i think elections matter and the voters spoke and even though they were relatively close it isn't that close in the electoral college. even the margin is now expanded to 4 million votes. i think people read those results. i think for example on an issue like immigration reform, the prospect for compassion emigration reforms in the near future are much greater today than they were three weeks ago because of the result in the election. i think the chances of coming to

an agreement around this fiscal clefs are greater today because of this election because if politicians read the election results and so i don't know whether our campaign for their campaign fostered the environment for that but i think the voters did, and that is as it should be. >> let's take these last couple questions here on this side. my question is in the days following the election there was a fair amount of coverage about the decisiveness of the obama for american ground game the field or get-out-the-vote operation. i was wondering looking forward how you need to do you think that model was to this campaign and candidate and if this was maybe the new model of organizing and campaigning who to be replicated how is that going to play out in 2016 especially in an election where both candidates will have contested primaries and maybe

not the opportunity to set up offices in the coralville iowa if they are a year and a half out from the election. .. >> but to what's happened the marriage of social media and traditional fieldwork, so that, you know, we are far more efficient at communicating with

people. we registered i think more voters online in this campaign then we registered altogether in the last campaign. so, you know, the tech knowledge he has made it easier -- technology has made it easier to organize. technology has made it easier to kind of individualized our appeals to voters and our contact and our dialogue with voters. and i think that what was done in this campaign was light-years ahead of what we did in the last campaign. and whoever runs in 2016 will have to reinvent yet again, because the technology changes so rapidly. twitter was nothing for years ago and look how important it was in this campaign. in terms of -- you know, one other surprise that was surprising, i was surprised at how little the republicans invested in field in their primary campaigns. one thing that really benefited

us in 2008 was we had to run a 50 state primary campaign with secretary clinton. and we, from the beginning, we were determined to run a very aggressive field, campaign. so we set up operations in all the states, and, obviously, in those battleground states those organizations sustained themselves. you know, in iowa for example, that was very, very important. so, you know, given the nature of the process, at least in those early states if i were running in 2016, i would not do what was done in the republican race, which is just turning into a media campaign. you won't leave any lasting structure that you can build on for the general. >> another question over here. >> yeah, so, i was really excited when president obama came out in favor of gay

marriage. it felt like a risk, and i felt kind of hard left, but i was kind of surprised i other issues. but i felt the american people cared about that the candidates were relatively silent on. such as the drug war, climate change and environmentalism. it took a long time before they ever talk about afghanistan. and i was wondering if there was any rhyme or reason for those issues? >> well, i challenge you just a little bit. the president talked a lot about afghanistan, and made clear that they were going to withdraw our troops in 2014, and that was something he probably spent a great deal of time talking about. it was only late in the campaign that governor ramp -- governor romney gauged on that and that became a debate within the campaign. on the issue of climate change, you know, there's no doubt that

that is a central challenge for us and the world. the president said in his first campaign. he said in this campaign. and some of the things that he has done, doubling of fuel efficiency standards, the first time we've raised them in 30 years, doubling of renewable energy. you know, these things are a part -- you know, so the changes in environmental law relative to emissions are all part of that. we've got to do more. we have to build on that. but it's certainly commitment. one thing we've got to recognize is that this doesn't have to be a competition between our economy and our health, and the health of the world. because renewable energy, clean energy has economic benefits that are pronounced, and people understand that. so you know we highlighted the issues that we felt needed to be

highlighted for the voters do we're going to make the decision in the elections, but the president's agenda is reflected in his work. i suspect he will continue to work hard on those issues. >> let's take these last two questions as we wrap things up here. >> hi. things are coming back. i have two quick follow-ups. >> i'm going to stay. >> thank you. so one regarding super pacs, just now you again said you're concerned about this unlimited money in campaign finance. on the other hand, we saw people are today, about how democrats are loving super pacs are already owning up their machines for 2016. what are the prospects for repeating citizens united, or comprehensive campaign finance reform, now that it seems both sides are ready to embrace the

idea, or at least learn to live with super pacs and knowing that money has limited power. >> let's stay with that question if you don't mind just in the interest of time because i think it's also a substantive one. you want t to weigh in? >> it's very substantive. what i will do it is -- yes, i think we should, the president said during this campaign we should pursue avenues to try and restore sanity to this process. you know, perhaps even include at a constitutional amendment. but it is also true that no side is going, given what we just saw, you're not going to see unilateral disarmament. it would be foolish to do that. and it's not just relative -- remember, when you're talking a super pacs, there's more insidious cousins of

501(c)(4)'s that run essentially campaign ads under the guise of social welfare, education and are completely undisclosed. at least super pacs have to disclose their donors. these 501(c)(4)'s belt. and you know, so we certainly can flush that out and make sure that i think that they would raise far less money if people had to reveal their donations. and they would be, take some of donations if they had to reveal who they were taking the money from. so we have to pursue all these avenues. but in the interim i could not advise the democratic party, to as a matter of principle, just lay down arms and get mowed over in the next election. i think that would be a mistake. we've got to work together. or with got to move together. we all have to be operating under the same rules, or else

we're going to have a disproportionate result in the election. >> let's take our final question from the side of the room. >> i've always been told to say something proactive before i throw out a curveball question. >> thanks for the warning ethnic. >> i grew up on the south side. but my hope is that before the session concludes your that you can share with all of us again how we can contribute to epilepsy research and the retirement or this temporary retirement of the famed mustache. and now for the curveball. i'm a southside, for three decades. and that also have a love relationship because dr. richard roth for, the pediatrician across the street say divorce from englewood, literally. and it worked out okay. he became the first black president of the medical society. but to my point, medicare.

let me step back. obamacare, i have a love -- how long does this marriage have to last relationship. because it's just tremendous legislation. it's just astounding. people be talking about this for century how this happened it is just incredible and i love it. my patience for the inner-city. and i certainly don't want us to fall back on vouchers for medicare, and i certainly know that the romney solution universal access is not for my emergency department. for many reasons. but there's something that both republicans and democratic locks, the real brainiacs have all agreed on. budget office people agreed on a. democratic budget wonks agreed on a. the sustainable growth rate is medicare is much more insidious and is going to ruin medicare

long before a voucher style system will ruin it. and how can have two different parties agree on something so very fundamental and not come together and get it done? >> a good question and a great one. >> but don't let me -- i don't want to get out of there without answering. and i want to make one other point, which i have a love affair with institutions as well because susan's father, dr. richard land that was on the medical faculty here for what, six years or so. but let me ask a many to question and finish on the other point. there's no doubt that medicare program is challenging. we lengthen the life of medicare by eight years with the affordable care act. and we have to do more. the question wasn't ever whether

we don't need to do something to deal with the challenges facing medicare in an aging population. the question is how. and whether come into, a spousal system which slowly shifting costs onto other beneficiaries, ultimately in a crushing weight was the answer. whether we need to reform the system and save money within the system. and that's what we have to have the determination to do. i'm sure there will be discussion about other things that may have to get done. but fundamentally we need to, as they say, we need to make medicine more efficient. >> is there any chance of getting to an agreement on any part of that, this first year in the second term of the new

congress? >> look, part of this has to do with seeing the affordable care act through. i think that's a great step forward on november 6 if we are going to see it through and it's going to produce real results in terms of -- and we've already seen results in terms of cost containment. i think we'll see much more. in terms of the rest of it, we will see. i think that everybody said we have to have an honest discussion, and without limitation. and i think that discussion will go forward. but let me just address the epilepsy peace. some of you may know that i have a child, our daughter, lauren, 31 now, and when she was seven months old, a student found a blue and limp in her crib and thought she had passed away. it turned out she had a seizure. we took her to the hospital. we saw her have another, most frightening thing that i had

ever seen. tiny little baby. a grand mal seizure. they told us then it would maybe, a fever induced and she would be better, probably in the next day or two days later. and we left the hospital a month later and she was still having up to 10 seizures a day. and this went on for 18 years of her life. often on, these floors of seizures that we couldn't stop. they did tremendous damage to her, robbed her of her childhood, robbed her of many of for capacities, almost took her life. and killed 50,000 people a year. and so susan, 13 years ago, started something called citizens united research for apple as a to help find the cure so now the families and other children wouldn't have to go through what we saw our daughter go through, or lose their kids as we saw many parents do.

and so, fast forward to the mustache. i had made a bet on television with joe scarborough that if we lost at a pennsylvania, michigan or minnesota that i wished my mustache off, but, and he agreed he would grow one if we won florida and north carolina. and, of course, i won the bet. and joe negotiated his way out of the bet by saying i will give you $10,000 for the cure. they been great supporters of ours, and will do a fundraiser for you, and i won't wear a fake mustache of your choosing at a fund-raising. we have expanded on that and said if we could raise $1 million by the end of this month for epilepsy research for cure, that i would still shave my mustache off on "morning joe," and since this is the final week, we think we raised close to $900,000, but there's

still time so anybody wants to log onto slashed the stash.com -- [laughter] and contribute applaud that. >> i know i speak on behalf of everybody when i say we look forward to seeing much more of you on campus, stash or now. we hope to see you without it. >> thank you. >> thank you for everything spent and i'm so excited to be here. i think this is going to be an extraordinary institute. i think the students will been in for a -- from it. the community will benefit from it. will make the university of chicago a real destination for newsmakers, for practitioners in politics. i think it will be a great addition to what is already a great, great institution. >> david, thank you so much. thank you all for your questions. [applause]

>> are there today before gaveling out the senate passed legislation that provides $9.7 billion in funding for flood insurance programs and in helping those affected by hurricane sandy >> they put us -- i don't know,

someone said they shot. us as they said the workshop, i went down. i think of something like 96 tanks passed, and each one were firing in the group the then they came around. they shot spent to put it simply, the 150 were held captive at about 84 were then shut down at ss forces that captured him. the survivors, including ted paluch, play dead in a field after they were fired on by machine guns at close range from the distance from myself at the podium to you sitting in the audience. this link. machine guns were fired at each main. they didn't run. they fell to the ground. >> the summer something, 9044, an american convoy traveling to belgium is spotted and captured by german troops. danny parker and survivor ted paluch on the massacre sunday

night at nine eastern and pacific. part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays feature live coverage of the u.s. senate. weeknights watch key public policy events. every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website. and you can join in on the conversation on social media sites. >> next, remarks from author and journalist george will on religion and american politics. he addressed students and faculty at the john danforth center in early december. this is an hour and a half. >> and now finally it is my honor to introduce senator john danforth, who will introduce mr. will. senator danforth is a partner with the law firm of ryan gave. he graduated with honors from

princeton university where he majored in religion. and he received a bachelor of divinity degree from the. >> divinity school, and a bachelor of laws degree from yale law school. he practiced law for seven years and then began his political career in 1968, when he was elected attorney general of missouri in his first race for public office. he was reelected to that post in 1972. missouri voters didn't elected him to the u.s. senate in 1976. and reelected him in 1982 and 1988, for a total of 18 years of service there. senator danforth initiated major legislation in areas such as international trade, telecommunications, health care, research and development, transportation, and civil rights. he was later appointed to

council by attorney general janet reno to investigate the federal raid on the branch davidian compound in waco, texas. he later represented the united states and u.s. ambassador to the united nations, and serve as a special envoy to sudan. he has been a great friend to missouri, to st. louis, and the washington university. please join me in welcoming him now. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. in making this introduction, i all our speaker an apology. and we need the apology, you are going to conclude that you haven't already, that i am a really terrible human being. i am the kind of person who takes advantage of a friend,

especially when the friend is vulnerable. and then when he's vulnerable, i pounce. tonight's origin was a rehearsal dinner the night before the wedding of victoria will, george his only daughter, and the apple of his i. george was standing on the edge of the hotel ballroom, taking in one of life's great moments. married to the daughter was so deeply emotional. and george, the loving father was clearly caught up in the moment. and that was the moment that i seized the opportunity -- [laughter] -- to strike. i sidled up to him and whispered

ever so softly in his ear, would you mind giving a lecture at washington university? [laughter] you might ask how anybody could be that insensitive to put that kind of question at that time. well, after 18 years in the senate, it came naturally. [laughter] george has been a close friend for nearly four decades, and it's wonderful to welcome him to st. louis, even if the invitation was so disgraceful. george will is one of the most recognizable people in america today, and certainly the most widely known intellectual. he is the author of at least a dozen books, and they twice a week newspaper column.

since the early days of the show he has been a regular in what is now this week with george stephanopoulos. he is an astute political philosopher, a present-day edmund burke, a defined of the meaning of conservatism. he is a native of illinois. a student of baseball, a lifelong cubs fan, and as such -- [laughter] -- he is a man of sorrow. [applause] [laughter] and despite the rudeness of the invitation, he is my friend, george will. [applause]

>> actually, jack's invitation is perfectly acceptable. my dear friend and first journalistic employer, william f. buckley, once called his friend, charlton heston, the actor, and said, chuck, do you believe in free speech? and heston said, of course. good, because you are about to give one. [laughter] is a delight to be back in the midwest, and it's a delight to be back on campus. it was long ago and far away, i was a college professor. don't mention that in washington where professor is a fighting word. i will just say, elaborate on that remark, that in 1976, two of my friends ran for the senate against each other, one was the

incumbent senator, jim buckley, bill buckley's brother, and the other was pat moynihan, who would go on to serve with distinction and with jack. and the night they were both nominated, by their respective parties, the journalists, jim buckley got up at his headquarters and said, i look forward to running against professor moyar income and i'm sure professor moynihan will conduct the kind of high level campaign you would expect of a harvard professor. over at -- pats headquarters the journal said that, jim buckley is referring to you as professor moynihan. pat to himself up to his concert will hide and said, oh, the mudslinging has begun. [laughter] spent what you're in for tonight, however, is an episode of my -- a lecture on political

philosophy. take notes, there will be a test. in 1953, the year in which the words under god were added to the pledge of allegiance, and the first year of the presidency of dwight eisenhower, he proclaimed the fourth of july a national day of prayer. on that day, eisenhower-ish in the morning, he goes in the afternoon, and played bridge in the evening. there were, perhaps, prayers in these recreations, perhaps when the chief executive faced a particularly daunting putt. three days before christmas in 1952, president-elect ike made a speech in which he said quote, our form of government has no

sense, unless it is founded in the deeply felt religious faith, and i don't care what it is. he received much ridicule from his culture despisers for the last part of the statement. his professed indifference to the nature of the religious faith, without which our government supposedly makes no sense. but it is the first part of the statement that deserves continuing attention. certainly many americans, perhaps a majority of them, agree that democracy or at least our democracy, which is based on the belief in natural rights, presupposes of religious faith. people who believe this site as eisenhower did, the declaration of independence, and the proposition that all people are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.

but there are two separate and related propositions that are pertinent to any consideration of the role of religion in american politics. one is an empirical question. is it a fact that the success of the democracy, meaning the success of self-government, requires a religious demos, a religious people governing themselves by religious norms and injunctions? the second question is a question of logic. does belief in america's distinctive democracy, a limited government whose limits are defined by the natural rights of the governed, does this entail from the disbelief? the empirical question, i believe that religion has been and can still be supremely important that help both the

flourishing of our democracy. i do not, however, believe it is necessary for good citizenship. regarding the question of our governments logic, i do not think the idea of natural rights requires a religious foundation. or even that the founders uniformly process. it is, however, intuitively the case that natural rights are especially firmly grounded when they are grounded in religious doctrine. i will come of this large subject a bit oblique league as follows. we in journalism are admonished not to bury the lead here that is, we are supposed to put the most important point early on in our story. i will begin briskly by postulating the following. in the 20 century, the most important decision taken anywhere by anyone about

anything was the decision made in the first decade of the last century about where to locate princeton universities graduate college. for instance, president, a presbyterian named woodrow wilson wanted to graduate college located on the main campus. so undergraduates and graduate students would mingle. wilson's adversary, andrew fleming west, wanted to graduate college located where it now is, on a hill a few blocks from the main campus. woodrow wilson was a man of unbending temperament when he was certain he was right, which was almost always. he took his defeat about the graduate college badly. re-signs princeton's presidency, went into politics, and ruined the 20th century. [laughter] i simplify somewhat and

exaggerate a bit. i do so to make a point, however. today and for the past century, since woodrow wilson was elected the nation's president, 100 years and one month ago, american politics has been a struggle to determine which of two princetonians best understood what american politics should be. should we practice the politics of woodrow wilson, or princeton's class of 1879? or the politics of james madison, of the class of 1771? what, you may be wondering, has this to do with our topic today, the role of something agent, religion, in something very modern, the american policy. the crux of the difference between the madisonian and the wilsonian approach to politics is the concept of natural

rights. as a draw for you my picture of the rivalry between these princetonians, i recall the story of the teacher who asked her class at eight year olds to draw a picture of whatever each of them chose it and as they drew, sheesh -- she circulated among the desks pausing at the desk of little sally, she asked, are what are you drawing a picture? sally says i am drawing a picture of god. the teacher said, well, sally, no one knows what god looks like. to which sally replied, they will in a minute. [laughter] in 30 minutes or so you'll have a picture of my theory of the role of religion in american politics. i will begin by noting three perhaps pertinent peculiarities about my presence for this purpose at this distinguished university, and the center, both

of which go so much to the generosity of the danforth family. the first peculiarity is this. i write about politics primarily to support my baseball habit. i am, as jack had the bad taste to mention, a chicago cubs fan. now standing in the belly of the beast. [laughter] that his cardinals nation. i grew up northeast of here in champaign, illinois, midway between chicago and st. louis. and adding h2 tended to make life shaping decisions, i had to choose between being a cubs fan and a cardinals fan. all of my friends became cardinal fans and grew up cheerful and liberal. [laughter] i became a gloomy conservative. but not, i stress, gloomy about

the long-term prospects of the american republic or the role of religion in it. the second peculiarity is this. america just had a presidential election. its 57th. in which the ticket of one of the major parties did not contain a protestant. this is an event without precedent, and is especially interesting because the ticket, a mormon at a catholic, was put forward by party that is a current choice of a majority of america's evangelical protestants. clearly, regarding religion, the times they are a changing. but then, when are they not in this relentlessly forward looking and forward leaning nation? a third peculiarity is that i am part of this interesting change. i am a member of a cohort that the pew survey calls than none.

today, when americans are asked their religious affiliation, 20%, a large and growing portion say none. my subject today is the greater role of religion in politics in america, yet i am not a person of faith. concerning this, permit me a brief autobiographical digression. i am the son of a professor of philosophy. he was the son of a lutheran minister. indeed, my father, frederick well, may have come -- may have become a philosopher because his father was a minister. as a boy, the future professor will occasionally sat outside after wills study do. listening to the pastor and members of his congregation wrestle with the problem of reconciling the doctrine of grace and the concept of free

will. by the time my father became an adult, after a childhood of two or more church services every sunday, he had seen quite enough of the inside of churches, but he also had acquired the philosopher's disposition. hence, i was raised in a secular home, but one in which the tablecloth often took a reflective term. because my father had recently sojourned at oxford, i was able to spend two years there in the early 1960s, when oxford was the center of the study of philosophy in the anglican world. because of that, i next went to princeton to study political philosophy, intending to follow my father's footsteps into academia. which i briefly did before i turned to, or as my father said, before i sink to journalism.

heidi gain in journalism as washington editor of william f. buckley's "national review" magazine. it was a devout catholic who believes that a real conservative need not be religious, but could not be hostile to religion. i agree. as did our nation's founders. which brings me to our subject and to my thesis, which is this. religion is sinful to the american policy, because religion is not central to american politics. that is, religion plays a large role in the nurturing of the virtue that the republican government presupposes because of the modernity of america. our nation response to politics, to public policy. the secondary, the subsidiary role, of encouraging, or at least not stunting, the

flourishing of the infrastructure of institutions that have the primary responsibility for nurturing the sociology of virtue. these institutions were the primary responsibility, are of the private sector of life. they are not political institutions. some of our founders, notably benjamin franklin, subscribed to the 18th century -- a watery undemanding scripture that postulated a creator who wound up the universe like a clock and thereafter did not intervene in the human story. it has been said that the beast god is like a rich and in australia, benevolent, distant and and frequently heard from. deism explains the existence and nature of the universe. at so does the big bang theory which is not a religion.

if religion is supposed to console and enjoying as was explained, deism hardly counts as a religion. george washington famously would not kneel to pray. when his pastor rebuked him for setting a bad example by leaving services before communion, washington mended his ways in his characteristically austere manner. he stayed away from church on communion sundays. he acknowledged christianity's benign influence on society, but no ministers were present and no prayers were said when he died a stoic death. this, even though in his famous farewell address, which to this day is read aloud in congress every year on his birthday, washington had proclaimed that religion and rowdy our

indispensable supports for political prosperity. he said, let us with caution indulge the supposition that are rowdy can be maintained without religion. he warned that quote, reason and experience both forbid us to expect national morality can prevail in exclusion of religion. the longer john avenue lived, shorter grew his creed which in the end was unitarianism. jefferson wrote those ringing words in the declaration about the creator who endowed us with rights, but jettisoned was a utilitarian when he urged a nephew to inquire into the truth of christianity, saying, if it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will find insightful

virtues in the pleasure you feel in virtue exercised. and the love of others that will procure you. james madison always commonsensical explained, actually sort of explained the way of religion as an innate appetite. the mind, he said, prefers that once the idea of a self existing cause to that of an infinite series of cause and effect. when the first congress hired a chaplain, madison said, it was not with my approval. yet, even the founders who were firm believers considered it a civic duty, a public service to be the observant unbelievers. for example, two days after jefferson wrote his famous letter endorsing a wall of

separation between church and state, he attended as he and other government officials frequently did, church services in the house of representatives. services were also regularly held in the treasury department. jefferson and other founders made the statesmanlike accommodation of the public's strong preference, which had been -- religion to enjoy ample space in the public square. they understood that christianity, particularly and it post-reformation ferments, fostered attitudes and aptitude associated with and useful to popular government. protestantism put an emphasis on the individual's direct i mediated relationship with god, and the individual conscience and choice.

subverted convention of hierarchical societies in which deference was expected from the many toward the few. beyond that, however, the american founding burned much more to john locke and to jesus. the founders created a distinctly modern regime, one respectful of pre-existing rights, rights that exists before government exists. writes that are natural, and that they are not creations of the regime that exists to secure them. in 1786, a year before the constitutional convention, in the preamble of the virginia statute for religious freedom, jefferson proclaimed, our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions. any more than our opinions and civics or geometry. since the founding, america's

religious enthusiasm have waxed and waned. the durability of americans denomination has confounded jeffersons prediction, which he made in 1822, four years before his death. he then said that quote, there's not a young man now living in the united states who will not die a unitarian. in 1908, william jennings bryan, the democrats presidential nominee said that his opponent, the president william howard taft, was unfit to be president because being a unitarian, taft did not believe in the virgin birth. the public yawned, and if elected taft. there is a fascinating paradox that works in our nation's history. america, the first and most relentlessly modern nation, is

to the consternation of the social scientists also the most religious modern nation. one important reason for this is that we have disentangled religion from public institutions. there has long been a commonplace assumption, one that my dear friend, pat moynihan, himself a liberal in good standing, called the liberal expectancy. it was and still is the assumption of most intellectuals, that as science, rationalism and the rationale of market society event, as the disenchantment of the world perceives the pace, paris modern forces will lose their history, shaping saliency. the two most important of these allegedly free modern forces are religion and ethnicity. of course, every day and every

region, events refused the liberal expectancy. religion, and especially religion in tangled with reinforcing and ethnicity, still drives history. religion is also central to the emergence of america's public philosophy. so at the risk of offending the special is by distortion through compression, let me offer a brief, a very brief, placement of america's founders in the stream of world political philosophy. machiavelli really begins modern political -- his thought is a convenient demarcation between the ancients and the moderns. the ancients took their political bearings from their understanding of the best of which people were capable. they sought to enlarge the

likelihood of the emergence of fine and noble leaders, and a fine and noble attributes among the lead. machiavelli, however, took his bearings from people as they are. he defined the political project as making the best of this flawed material. he knew, in words can't would write almost three centuries later, that nothing straight would ever be made from the crooked timber of humanity. machiavelli was no democrat, but he is among democracies precursors. this is so because he -- toward accommodation of strong and predictable forces, arising from a great constant, the human nature common to all people in all stations. for 44 years, machiavelli and

luther were contemporary. machiavelli is the prince that distributed in 1513, luther's 95 theses were nailed to the church door in lichtenberg in 1517. luther, lord knows, was no democrat in theory come and at least all in temperament. but luther, too, was one of democracy's most potent -- [inaudible]. when summer before, he proclaimed here i stand, i cannot do otherwise. he asserted that primacy of the individual and the primacy of the individual's conscience. this express the logic of his theological radicalism. his determination to bounce christian faith on the unmediated relation of the faithful person to god. without fully intending to do so, he celebrated individualism

at the expense of tradition and of hierarchy or because luther was in humanities pass, democracy was in humanity's future. the advent of modern are deep in political philosophy coincided with a parallel development in a closely related field of philosophy, the philosophy of knowledge. of how we know things. here, descartes played a role comparable to machiavelli's role in reorienting political thought. descartes sought a grounder certainty, a ground beyond revelation and beyond pure abstract reason. he famously found such a ground in cognition itself. in his famous formulation -- i think, therefore i am. the senses of the 20 century

called census data, which would henceforth supply the foundations for what ever certainty human beings can achieve. it was in hobbs political theory that says marji became decisive. hobbs bedrock certainty came from his experience of religious warfare. this stripe top hobbs that all human beings have one shared constant unshakable similarity. they all fear life-and-death. powerful and simple desire for security, he erected the philosophy of despotism. in exchange for security, people would willingly surrender the precious sovereignty they possessed in the state of nature, where life was solitary poor, nasty, brutish and short.

but hobbes philosophy, although if the record despotism, contains also the seeds of democracy in four ways. first, hobbes said that all human beings are equally under the sway of the strong imperative. second, he said all human beings can, without the assistance of a priestly cleric, comprehend the basic passions that move the world. third, to the extent of the world of politics is driven by strong and steady passions and interests, to that extent there can be what madison would come to call a new science of politics. a science of politics based on what all human beings have in common, knowledge supplied by the senses.

is a political science driving its data as it were from the people? from the demos. fourth, because people do not agree about religious truth, said hobbes, and because they fight over their disagreements, social tranquility is served by regarding religion as a voluntary matter for private judgment. not state-supported and state enforced orthodoxy. in the interest of social peace, the higher aspirations of the ancient political philosophers were pushed to the margins of modern politics. those aspirations were considered, at best, -- [inaudible] and at worst, downright dangerous. henceforth, politics would not be a sphere in which human nature is perfected. the political project would not

include pointing people toward their highest potential. instead, modern politics would be based on the assumption that people will express and will act upon the strong impulses of their flawed natures. people will be self interested. so to recapitulate, the ancients had asked, what is the highest of which mankind is capable? and how can we pursue this in politics? hobbes and subsequent modernists asked, what is the worst that can happen in politics, and how can we avoid this. america's founders, and particularly the wisest and most subtle of them, james madison, had a kind of political catechism of express modernity. the catechism went like this. what is the worst political

outcome? of the answer is to me. -- tyranny. what form of tyranny can happen in a republic governed by majority rule? the answer is tyranny is the majority. how can this be prevented, or at least made unlikely? the answer is, by not having majority, they can become tyrannical by being durable. by that is reducing the likelihood that the stable tyrannical majority can emerge and long endure. how is this to be achieved? it is to be achieved by implementing james madison's revolution and democratic theory. of the diminutive madison, he probably was about five-foot three or four mike at the most but it was had never had there been such a high ratio of minds to mass.

he was princeton's first graduate student, and he turned a democratic theory upside down. before medicine, ma the few political theorists who thought democracy was feasible believe it could be feasible only in a small face-to-face society, something like pericles in athens or resells geneva. this was supposedly so because factions were considered the enemy of good government, and small homogenous societies which were thought to be least successful to the proliferation of action. madisons revolutionary theory, the core of which is distilled in federalist paper number 10, was that a republic should be not small but extensive. expand the scope of the republic in order to expand the number of

factions. the more factions, the merrier. a saving multiplicity of faction will make it more probable that majorities will be unstable, shifting short-lived combinations of minority factions. madison related is clear eyed and unsentimental view of human interest in this to the constitution structure, a separation of powers. in federalist 51 he said, ambition must be made to counteract ambition there that is, the self interested mess of rival institutions, of course the president legislators, we'll check one another. madisons family continued, it may be a reflection on human nature that such vices should be necessary to control the abuse of the government. but what is government itself

but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? if men were angels, no government would be necessary. if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. so, said madison, we must have a policy of supplying but opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives. but neither medicine nor the other founders were saying that we should presuppose that america can prosper without there being good motives somewhere. such motives are manifestations of good character. our sober founders were not so foolish as to suppose that freedom can thrive, or even survived, without appropriate education and other nourishment of character arc they understood

that this must mean education broadly understood to include, not just schools, but all the institutions of civil society, that explain freedom and equip citizens with the virtues that freedom requires. these virtues include industriousness, self-control, moderation and responsibility. these are virtues that reinforce the rationality that is essential to human happiness. notice that when madison, like the founders generally, spoke of human nature, he was not speaking to -- as modern progressives to you as something valuable, something in constant, something evolving, something constantly formed and reformed by changing social and other historical forces. when people today speak of

nature, they generally speak of flora and fauna, of trees and animals, and other things not human. but the founders spoke of nature as a guide to come and as a measure of, human action. they thought of nature not is something merely to be manipulated for human convenience, but rather as a source of norms to be discovered. they understood that natural rights could not be asserted, celebrated and defended endless nature, including human nature, is regarded as a normative rather than a merely contingent fact. this was a few buttressed either teaching of biblical religion, that nature is not chaos, but rather is the replacement of chaos by an order reflecting the mind and will of the creator.